Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web at |http: //books .google .com/I i POLITICAL DEBATES BETWEEN LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS. r f • I. t r- « I I ■««Mte«'* „,«. till l>i*IMW> ^POLITICAL DEBATES^ ABRAHAM ^INCOLN AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS N THE CeLEBHATVD CAKPiUUN OF \Wt9 IN ILLINOIS, IKCLUDINQ THE PRECEDIHO Speeches of each at Chicaoo, Sprikopield, etc. THE TWO GREAT SPEECHES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN OHIO IN 1859. THE BURROWS BROTHERS COMPANY, CUbrlanD, $^io. 1894. U-- ;■■* •'.' •- . / -*•« — t i '■■ -rf \kS 53^o.l\ \ \ ■ I < Sbtbm f^untrteti anil jFtftg Sojifns reprfnteti for STije BnrrotDS Brotfins ffompans bjr Jolyn nSflscm anti 2on, at ti|e QSnfbetsfts $re00, (iEambrnige, 18 9^. TU..&'^X TABLE OF CONTENTS. Paob Speech of Mr. Lincoln, at Springpibld, June 17, 1858 7 ^ „ „ „ AT Chicago, July 10, 1868 22 „ „ „ AT Springfield, July 17, 1858 68 » „ „ AT Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859 288 n „ „ AT Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1859 .... 300 perch of Mr. Douglas, at Chicago, July 9, 1858 12 », n ,1 AT Bloomington, July 16, 1858 84 „ „ „ AT Springfield, July 17, 1858 52 ORRESPONDENCR BETWEEN MESSRS. LINCOLN AND DoUGLAS, PRELIMINARY TO THE Debates 80 ''iRST Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858 88 - Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech 88 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 90 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 108 J Second Joint Debate, at Freeport, August 27, 1858 107. Mr. Lincoln's Opening Speech 107 'Mr. Douglas's Reply 114 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 129 / Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro, Sept. 15, 1858 188 Mr. Douglas's Speech 183 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 143 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 157 Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston, Sept. 18, 1858 163 Mr. Lincoln's Speech 163 Mr. Douglas's Reply 173 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 187 Extract from Mr. Trumbull's Speech at Alton 192 Extract from Douglas's Speech at Jacksonville 197 -— ■ iM.fcp mm ■ ■«W*tflW^^V^M 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Tage Fifth Joint Debate, at Galebbukoh, Oct. 7, 1858 202 Mr. Douqlas'a Speech 202 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 210 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 222 Sixth Joint Debate, at Quincy, Oct. 13, 1858 227 Mr. Lincoln's Speech 227 Mr. Douglas's Reply 235 Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder 248 Seventh and Last Joint Debate, at Alton, Oct. 15, 1858 253 Mr. Douglas's Speech 253 Mr. Lincoln's Reply 2 Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder 2 ■ 1 1 * 11 ■ ! ■■I^^IB ^eat, how is ho to carry it out when he gets to the Senate ? Does he intend to introduce a bill to abolish slavery in Kentucky ? Does he intend to introduce a bill to int<5r- fere with slavery in Virginia ? How is he to accomplish what be professes must be done in order to save the Union ? Mr. Lincoln is a lawyer, su^/acious and able enough to tell you how he proposes to do it. I ask Mr, Lincoln Iiow it is that he proposes ultimately to bring about this uniformity in each and all the States of the Union. There is but one possible mode which I can see, and perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue it ; that is, to intnxlace a pro{>osition into the Senate to change the Constitution of the United Stat^ss, in order tluit all the State Legislatures may be abolished. State sovereignty blotted out, and the power conferred upon Congress to make local laws and establish tlie dom^^stic institutions and police regulations uniformly throughout the Ufiito hy a " bogus " Legislature, imposed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. Why has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas under these circumstances ? Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed to slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves there, the moment that majority got possession of the ballot-boxes, and a fair election was held, that moment slavery would be abolished, and he would lose them. For that reason, such owners as took their slaves there, brought them back to Missouri, fearing that if they remained they would be emancipated. Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, slavery has been kept out of Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the first three years they had a Legislature in that Territory favorable to it. I tell you, my friends, it is im- possible under our institutions to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty asserted in the Nebraska bill be fairly carried 46 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN out, by letting the people decide the question for themselves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract question so far as the practical result is concerned ; for, to use the language of an eminent Southern Senator on this very question : — ** I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it has afi&rmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regular tions and remedies ; and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a con- stitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-bom infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will encourage it by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws, and slave code ; if they do not want it, they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitu- tional prohibition, especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it ; and therefore, so far as the question of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as the principle of popular sovereignty is con- cerned, in its practical operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference to the Territories. My own opinion on that law point is well known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress. But be it as it may, the question was an abstract question, inviting no prac- tical results ; and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any State or Territory will depend upon whether the people are for or against it ; and whichever way they shall decide it in any Territory or in any State, will be entirely satisfactory to me. But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except before an Abolition Society. And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be the Bepublican party ; and I have yet to learn that the Eepublican party, under the Constitution, has judicial powers : but he is going to appeal from it and reverse it, either by an Act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or in some other way. And why ? Because he says that that decision deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution of the United States which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why ? For the palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject I have no doubt he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he con- .?/ ,^' AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 scientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree with him, and hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this Government of ours was founded on the white basis. I believe that it was established by white men, by men of European birth, or descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their posterity in all time to come. I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes, Indians, or other inferior races, with white men, as citizens. Our fathers had at that day seen the evil con- sequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the Indian and negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent and the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America and in the West India Islands, where the Indian, the negro, and men of all colors and all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own coimty, who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what friend Lincoln con- siders an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amalgamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and degradation, until it has reduced that people below the point of capacity for self-government Our fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other points on the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases. Still, Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate n^ro citizenship. He wants to give the negro the privilege of citizenship. He quotes scripture again, and says : " As yoiir Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect" And he applies that scriptural quota- tion to all classes ; not that he expects us all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as possible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equality under the law, in order that he may approach as near per- fection, or an equality with the white man, as possibla To this same end he quotes the Declaration of Independence in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ;" and goes on to argue that the negro was included, or intended to be included, in that Declaration, by the signers of the paper. He says that, by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of men, negroes included, were created equal and endowed by their Creator with cer- tain inalienable rights, and, further, that the right of the negro to be on an equality with the white man is a divine right, conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by the divine law. [" Higher law."] Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln's sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro, by the divine law, is created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive him of that equality, thus secured; and he contends that the negro ought, therefore, to have all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an ec^uality with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that would have to be done, in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution that clause which pro- hibits negroes from coming into this State and making it an African colony, 48 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN and permit them to come and spread over these charming prairies until in midday they shall look black as night When our friend Lincoln gets all his colored brethren around him here, he will then raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an eqiiality with the white man, first re- moving all legal restrictions, because they are our equals by divine law, and there should be no such restrictions, lie wants them to vote. I am opposed to it If they had a vote, I reckon they would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do. But that matters not The position he has taken on this question not only presents him as claiming for them the right to vote, but their right, under the divine law and the Declaration of Independence, to be elected to office, to become members of the Legislature, to go to Congress, to become Governors, or United States Senators, or Judges of the Supreme Court ; and I suppose that when they control that court they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right of citizenship, the right of voting, and the right of holding office and sitting on juries ; and what else ? Why, he would per- mit them to marry, would he not ? And if he gives them that right, I sup- pose he will let them marry whom they please, provided they marry their equals. If the divine law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman, that they are on a perfect equality, I suppose he admits the right of the negro woman to marry the white man. In other words, his doctrine that the negro, by divine law, is placed on a perfect equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by the Declaration of Independence, leads him necessarily to establish negro equality under the law ; but whether even then they would be so in fact would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they possessed, and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law. I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor in fact as citizens, but that he wishes to make them our equals under the law, and then say to them, " as your Master in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect" Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to tliat system of Abolition philosophy. I do not believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had any reference to negroes when they used the expression that all men were created equal, or that they had any reference to the Chinese or Coolies, the Indians, the Japanese, or any other inferior race. They were speaking of the white race, the European race on this continent, and their descendants, and emigrants who should come here. They were speaking only of the white race, and never dreamed that their language would be construed to include the negro. And now for the evidence of that fact At the time the Declaration of Independence was put forth, declaring the equality of all men, every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding col- ony, and every roan who signed that Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency. Did they intend, when they put their signatures to that instru- ment, to declare that their own slaves were on an equality with them ; that they were made their equals by divine law, and that any human law reducing them to an inferior position was void, as being in violation of divine law ? Was that the meaning of the signers of the Declaration of Independence ? Did Jefferson and Henry and Lee, — did any of the signers of that instru- ment, or all of them, on the day they signed it, give their slaves freedom ? History records that they did not. Did they go further, and put the negro on an equality with the white man throughout the country ? They did not AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 49 And jet if they had anderstood that Declaiatioii as inclading the n^ro, which 3fr. Lincoln holds they did, they would have heen bound, as conscientious men, to have restored the negro to that equality which he thinks the Almighty intended Ibey should occupy with the white man. They did not do it. Slav- ery was abolished in only one State before the adoption of the Constitution in 1739, and then in others gradually, down to the time this Abolition agitation began ; and it has not been abolished in one since. The history of the coun- try shows that neither the signers of the Declaration, or the framers of the Constitution, ever supposed it possible that their language would be used in an attempt to make this nation a mixed nation of Indians, n^roes, whites, and mongrels^ I repeat, that our whole history confirms the proposition, that from the earliest seUlement of the colonies down to the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, our fathers proceeded on the white basis, making the white people the governing race, but conceding to the Indian and negro, and all inferior races» all the rights and all the privileges they could enjoy consistent with the safety of the sociefy in whidi they lived. That is my opinion now. I told you that humanity, philanthropy, justice, and sound policy required that we should give the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, consistent with the safety and welfBoe of the State. The question then naturally arises. What are those rights and privileges, and What is the nature and extent of them ? My answer is, that that is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself We have decided that question. We have said that in this State the n^ro shall not be a slave, but that he shall enjoy no political rights; that n^ro equality shall not exist I am content with that position. My friend Lincoln is not. He thinks that our policy and our laws on that sub> ject are contrary to the Declaration of Independence. He thinks that the Almighty made the n^ro his equal and his brother. For my part, I do not consider the negro any kin to me, nor to any other white man ; but I would still carry my humanity and my philanthropy to the extent of giving him every privil^^ and every immunity that he could enjoy, consistent with our own good. We in Illinois have the right to decide upon that question for our- selves, and we are bound to allow every other State to do the sama Maine allows the negro to vote on an equality with the white man. I do not quar* rel with our friends in Maine for that If they think it wise* and proper in Maine to put the negro on an equality with the white man, and allow him to go to the polls and n^ative the vote of a white man, it is their business, and not mina On the other hand. New York permits a negro to vote, provided he owns $250 worth of property. New York thinks that a negro ought to be permitted to vote, provided he is rich, but not otherwise. They allow the aristocratic n^jro to vote there. I never saw the wisdom, the propriety, or the justice of that decision on the part of New York, and yet it never occurred to me that I had a right to find fault with that State. It is her business ; she is a sovereign State, and has a right to do as she pleases ; and if she will take care of her own negroes, making such regulations concerning them as suit her, and let us alone, I will mind my business, and not interfere with her. In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political or any civil rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for Kentucky to decide for her- self. I believe that the Kentuckians have consciences as well as ourselves ; they have as keen a perception of their religious, moral, and social duties as we have ; and I am willing that they shall decide this slavery question for 7 60 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN themselves, and be accountable to their God for their action. It is not for mc to arraign them for what they do. I will not judge them, lest I shall bi judged. Let Kentucky mind her own business and take care of her negroes and we attend to our own affairs and take care of our negroes, and we will b« the best of friends ; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we wit! her, there will be strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred there will be everything but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is noi necessary that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from thh State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if he i: going to assault us, shall actually come into our State, or come along the line and throw his bombshells over to explode in our midst Suppose Englauc should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara Kiver, opposite Buffalo, and throw bombshells over, which would explode in Main Street, it that city, and destroy the buildings, and that, when we protested, she woulc say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming intc the United States to interfere with us, and that she was just throwing hei bombs over the line from her own side, which she had a right to do. Would that explanation satisfy us ? So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going iut< Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, and will throw his bombshells — his Abolitioc documents — over the river, and will carry on a political warfare, and get up strife between the North and the South, until he elects a sectional President reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro tc an equality, and foixjes the South to submit to the doctrine that a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that the Union divided into half slave States and half free cannot endure ; that they must all be slave or they must all be free ; and that as we in the North are in the majority, we will not pei^ mit them to be all slave, and therefore they in the South must consent to the States all being free. Now, fellow-citizens, I submit to you whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony of this Union ? I sub- mit to you whether they are consistent with our duties as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same family ? I recognize all the people ol these States, North and South, East and West, old or new, Atlantic or Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of our flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, — "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;" and this would secure peace. Why should this slavery agitation be kept up ? Does it bene- fit the white man, or the slave ? Who does it benefit, except the Eepublican politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride into office? Why, I repeat, should it be continued ? Why cannot we be content to administer this gov- ernment as it was made, — a confederacy of sovereign and independent States ? Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, per- mit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions for themselves, as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out these lines of North and South, and resort back to these lines of State boundaries which the Constitu- tion has marked out and engraved upon the face of the country ; have no other dividing lines but these, and we will be one united^ harmonious people, with fratemtd feelings, and no discord or dissension. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 51 These are my views, and these are the principles to which I have devoted all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immortal Clay and the god-like Webster in that memorable struggle, in which Whigs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism and the Constitu- tion, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to I'estore peace and harmony to a distracted country. And when I stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and heard him refer, with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude, to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle of the Nebraska bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by which the peace of the country could be pre- served and the Union perpetuated, — I pledged him, on that death-bed of bis, that so long as I lived, my energies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as connected with it. I gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who has been called the ''god-like Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the whole Union, to bear testi- mony that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of these eminent statesmen have I failed, on any occasion, to vindicate the principle with which the last great crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they have been assailed ; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of preserving this Union. This Union can only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North and the South, the East and the West If that good feeling can be pre- served, the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its local or domestic institutions. Let that be done, and the Union wUl be perpetual; let that be done, and this Eepublic, which began with thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which, when it began, only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet expand, North and South, until it covers the whole Continent, and becomes one vast ocean^bound confederacy- Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism, is plain. There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line between State rights and Federal authority ; let us maintain the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitution has made it, and this Bepublic will endure forever. I thank you kindly for the patience with which you have listened to me. I fear I have wearied you. I have a heavy day's work before me to-morrow, I have several speeches to make. My friends, in whose hands I am, are tax- ing me beyond human endurance ; but I shall take the helm and control them hereafter. I am profoundly grateful to the people of McLean for the reception they have given me, and the kindness with which they have listened to me. I remember when I first came among you here, twenty-five years ago, that I was prosecuting attorney in this district, and that my earliest eflforts were made here, when my deficiencies were too apparent, I am afraid, to be con- cealed from any one. I remember the courtesy and kindness with which I was uniformly treated by you all ; and whenever I can recognize the face of one of your old citizens, it is like meeting an old and cherished friend. I come among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past favors. I have 52 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN been with you but little for the past few years, on account of my official duties. I intend to visit you again before the campaign is over. I wish to speak to your whole people. I wish them to pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, and the soundness of the principles which I have proclaimed. If you do not approve my principles, I cannot ask your support If you believe that the election of Mr. Lincoln would contribute more to preserve the harmony of the country, to perpetuate the Union, and more to the prosperity and the honor and glory of the State, then it is your duty to give him the preference. If, on the contrary, you believe that I have been faithful to my trust, and that by sustaining me you will give greater strength and efficiency to the princi- ples which I have expounded, I shall then be grateful for your support I renew my profound thanks for your attention. SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, Delivered July 17, 1858, at Springfield, III. (Mr. Lincoln was not present.) Mr. Chairman and Fellow-citizens of Springfield and old Sangamon : My heart is filled with emotions at the allusions which have been so happily and so kindly made in the welcome just extended to me, — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, bringing me to my home among my old friends, that language cannot express my gratitude. I do feel at home whenever I return to old Sangamon and receive those kind and friendly greetings which have never failed to meet me when I have come among you ; but never before have I had such occasion to be grateful and to be proud of the manner of the reception as on the present. While I am willing, sir, to attribute a part of this demonstration to those kind and friendly personal relations to which you have referred, I cannot conceal from myself that the controlling and pervad- ing element in this great mass of human beings is devotion to that principle of self-government to which so many years of my life have been devoted ; and rejoice more in considering it an approval of my support of a cardinal principle than I would if I could appropriate it to myself as a personal compliment You but speak rightly when you assert that during the last session of Con- gress there was an attempt to violate one of the fundamental principles upon which our free institutions rest. The attempt to force the Lecompton Consti- tution upon the people of Kansas against their will, would have been, if suc- cessful, subversive of the great fundamental principles upon which all oui institutions rest. If there is any one principle more sacred and more vital tc the existence of a free government than all others, it is the right of the people to form and ratify the Constitution under which they are to live. It is the comer-stone of the temple of liberty ; it is the foundation upon which the whole structure rests ; and whenever it can be successfully evaded, self-gov- ernment has received a vital stab. I deemed it my duty, as a citizen and as a representative of the State of Illinois, to resist, with all my energies and with whatever of ability I could command, the consummation of that effort tc force a constitution upon an unwilling people. I am aware that other questions have been connected, or attempted to be connected, with that great struggle ; but they were mere collateral questions not affecting the main point. My opposition to the Lecompton Constitution ii^^rr-rr— ^ -«TT-lTli-T 1 ■nr- ■ I ■!--• „-.-- ..w- . ., . -, ... .. , . _ AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 53 rested solely upon the fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not embody their will I did not object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I should have resisted it with the same energy and determination even if it had been a free State instead of a slave- holding State ; and as an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind that my speech against that Lecompton Act was made on the 9th day of December, nearly two weeks before the vote was taken on the acceptance or rejection of the slavery clause. I did not then know, I could not have known, whether the slavery clause would be accepted or rejected ; the general impres- sion was that it would be rejected ; and in my speech I assumed that impres- sion to be true ; that probably it would be voted down ; and then I said to the United States Senate, as I now proclaim to you, my constituents, that you have no more right to force a free State upon an unwilling people than you have to force a slave State upon them against their wilL You have no right to force either a good or a bad thing upon a people who do not choose to receive it And then, again, the highest privilege of our people is to determine for them- selves what kind of institutions are good and what kind of institutions are bad ; and it may be true that the same people, situated in a difierent latitude and difierent climate, and with difierent productions and difierent interests, might decide the same question one way in the North and another way in the South, in order to adapt their institutions to the wants and wishes of the people to be afiected by them. You all are familiar with the Lecompton struggle, and I will occupy no more time upon the subject, except to remark that when we drove the enemies of the principle of popular sovereignty from the efibrt to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon the attempt and to refer that Constitution to that people for accept- ance or rejection, we obtained a concession of the principle for which I had contended throughout the struggle. When I saw that the principle was con- ceded, and that the Constitution was not to be forced on Kansas against the wishes of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposition my support ; but when I examined it, I found that the mode of reference to the people and the form of submission, upon which the vote was taken, was so objectionable as to make it unfair and unjust. Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free government an unfair election is no election at alL Every election should be free, should be fair, with the same privileges and the same inducements for a negative as for an aflirmative vote. The objection to what is called the " English " proposi- tion, by which the Lecompton Constitution was referred back to the people of Kansas, was this : that if the people chose to accept the Lecompton Constitu- tion they could come in with only 35,000 inhabitants ; while if they deter- mined to reject it in order to form another more in accordance with their wishes and sentiments, they were compelled to stay out until they should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it was making a distinction and discrimination between Free States and Slave States under the Federal Con- stitution. I deny the justice, I deny the right, of any distinction or discrimi- nation between the States North and South, free or slave. Equality among the States is a fundamental principle of this government. Hence, while I will never consent to the passage of a law that a Slave State may come in with 35,000, while a Free State shall not come in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, I shall not consent to admit a Free State with a population of 35,000, and require 93,000, in a slaveholding State. — — ■ ■■ -»' - — " r^ - * I I ^g^^E ^ 1 - II I ■ m ,, • ■» ■ T ' "^ 1 ■ I iJ J i<. 54 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN My principle is to recognize each State of the Union as independent, sov- ereign, and equal in its sovereignty. I will apply that principle, not only to the original thirteen States, but to the States which have since been brought into the Union, and also to every State that shall hereafter be received, '' as long as water shall run, and grass grow/' For these reasons I felt compelled, by a sense of duty, by a conviction of principle, to record my vote against what is called the English bill ; but yet the bill became a law, and under that law an election has been ordered to be held on the first Monday in August, for the purpose of determining the question of the acceptance or rejection of the proposition submitted by Congress. I have no hesitation in saying to you, as the chairman of your committee has justly said in his address, that whatever the decision of the people of Kansas may be at that election, it must be final and conclusive of the whole subject ; for if at that election a majority of the people of Kansas shall vote for the acceptance of the Congressional proposition, Kansas from that moment becomes a State of the Union, the law admitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus the controversy terminates forever ; if, on the other hand, the people of Kansas shall vote down that proposition, as it is now generally admitted they will, by a large majority, then from that instant the Lecomptou Constitution is d-eady — dead beyond the power of resurrection ; and thus the controversy terminates. And when the monster shall die, I shall be willing, and trust that all of you will be willing, to acquiesce in the death of the Lecompton Constitution. The con- troversy may now be considered as terminated, for in three weeks from now it will be finally settled, and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling which grew out of it shall cease, unless an attempt should be made in the future to repeat the same outrage upon popular rights. I need not tell you that my past course is a sufficient guarantee that if the occasion shall ever arise again while I occupy a seat in the United States Senate, you will find me carrying out the same principle that I have this winter, with all the energy and all the power I may be able to command. I have the gi*atification of saying to you that I do not believe that that controversy will ever arise again : first, because the fate of Lecompton is a vximing to the people of every Territory and of every State to be cautious how the example is repeated ; and, secondly, because the President of the United States, in his annual message, has said that he trusts the example in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress passed a law, called an Enabling Act, requiring the Constitution to be sub- mitted to the people for acceptance or rejection, will be followed in all future cases. [" That was right."] I agree with you that it was right. I said so on the day after the message was delivered, in my speech in the Senate on the Lecompton Constitution, and I have frequently in the debate tendered to the President and his friends, tendered to the Lecomptonites, my voluntary pledge, that if he will stand by that recommendation, and they will stand by it, that they will find me working hand in hand with them in the effort to carry it out All we have to do, therefore, is to adhere firmly in the future, as we have done in the past, to the principle contained in the recommendation of the President in his annual message, that the example in the Minnesota case shall be carried out in all future cases of the admission of Territories into the Union as States. Let that be done, and the principle of popular sover- eignty will be maintained in all of its vigor and all of its integrity. I rejoice to know that Illinois stands prominently and proudly forward among the States which first took their position firmly and immovably upon this principle of popular sovereignty, applied to the Territories as well as to the States. You •--*-■ — ---- ■ — -- ■— -- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 all recollect when, in 1850, the peace of the country was disturbed in conse- quence of the agitation of the slavery question, and the effort to force the Wilmot Proviso upon all the Territories, that it required all the talent and all the energy, all the wisdom, all the patriotism, of a Clay and a Webster, united with other great party leaders, to devise a system of measures by which peace and harmony could be restored to our distracted country. Those compromise measures eventually passed, and were recorded on the statute book, not only as the settlement of the then existing difiiculties, but as furnishing a rule of action which should prevent in all future time the recurrence of like evils, if they were firmly and fairly carried out. Those compromise measures rested, as I said in my speech at Chicago on my return home that year, upon the principle that every people ought to have the right to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. They were founded upon the principle that while every State possessed that right under the Constitution, that the same right ought to be extended to and exercised by the people of the Territories. When the Illinois Legislature assembled, a few months after the adoption of these measures, the first thing the members did was to review their action upon this slavery agitation, and tiO correct the errors into which their predecessors had fallen. You remember that their first act was to repeal the Wilmot Proviso instructions to our United States Senators, which had been previously passed, and in lieu of them to record another resolution upon the journal, with which you must all be familiar, — a resolution brought forward by Mr. Ninian Edwards, and adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 61 in the affirmative to 4 in the negative. That resolution I can quote to you in almost its precise language. It declared that the great principle of self-government was the birthright of freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved by the blood of our revolutionary fathers, and must be continued and carried out in the organization of all the Territories and the admission of all new States. That became the Illinois platform by the United voices of the Democratic party and of the Whig party in 1851; all the Whigs and all the Democrats in the Legislature uniting in an aflBrmative vote upon it, and there being only four votes in the negative, — of Abolitionists, of course. That resolution stands upon the journal of your Legislature to this day and hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual instruction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to come to carry out that principle of self-government, and allow no limitation upon it in the organization of any Territories or the admission of any new States. In 1854, when it became my duty as the chairman of the committee on Territories to bring forward a bill for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, I incorporated that principle in it, and Congress passed it, thus carrying the principle into practical effect I will not recur to the scenes which took place all over the country in 1854, when that Nebraska bill passed. I could then travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of ray own effigies, in consequence of having stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how I met that storm, and whether I quailed under it ; whether I did not " face the music," justify the principle, and pledge my life to carry it out. A friend here reminds me, too, that when making speeches then, justifying the Nebraska bill and the great principle of self-government, that I predicted that in less than five years you would have to get out a search-warrant to find an anti-Nebraska man. Well, I believe I did make that prediction. I did not claim the power of a prophet, but it occurred to me that among a free people, and an honest people,- and an intelligent people, that five years was 56 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN long enough for them to come to an understanding that the great principle of self-government was right, not only in the States, but in the Territories. I rejoiced this year to see my prediction, in that respect, carried out and fulfilled by the unanimous vote, in one form or another, of both Houses of Congress. If you will remember that pending this Lecompton controversy that gsdlant old Roman, Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy successor of the immortal Clay, — I allude, as you know, to the gallant John J. Crittenden, — brought forward a bill, now known as the Crittenden-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that the Lecompton Constitution should be referred back to the people of Kansas, to be decided for or against it, at a fair election, and if a majority of the people were in favor of it, that Kansas should come into the Union as a slaveholding State, but that if a majority were against it, that they shoidd make a new constitution, and come in with slavery or without it, as they thought proper. [" That was right"] Yes, my dear sir, it was not only right, but it was carrying out the principle of the Nebraska bill in its letter and in its spirit. Of course I voted for it, and so did every Bepublican Sen- ator and Representative in Congress. I have found some Democrats so per- fectly straight that they blame me for voting for the principle of the Nebraska bill because the Republicans Voted the same way. [Great laughter. " What did they say ? "] What did they say ? Why, many of them said that Douglas voted with the Republicans. Yes, not only that, but with the black Republicans. Well, there are different modes of stating that proposition. The " New York Tribune " says that Douglas did not vote with the Republicans, but that on that ques- tion the Republicans went over to Douglas and voted with him. My friends, I have never yet abandoned a principle because of the support I found men yielding to it, and I shall never abandon my Democratic princi- ples merely because Republicans come to them. For what do we travel over the country and make speeches in every political canvass, if it is not to enlighten the minds of these Republicans, to remove the scales from their eyes, and to impart to them the light of Democratic vision, so that they may be able to carry out the Constitution of our country as our fathers made it. And if by preaching our principles to the people we succeed in convincing the Republicans of the errors of their ways, and bring them over to us, are we bound to turn traitors to our principles merely because they give them their support ? All I have to say is that I hope the Republican party will stand firm, in the future, by the vote they gave on the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in the resolutions of their County and Congressional Conven- tions, no declarations of "no more Slave States to be admitted into this Union," but in lieu of that declaration that we will find the principle that the people of every State and every Territory shall come into the Union with slavery or without it, just as they please, without any interference on the part of Congress. My friends, whilst I was at Washington, engaged in this great battle for sound constitutional principles, I find from the newspapers that the Repub- lican party of this State assembled in this capital in State Convention, and not only nominated, as it was wise and proper for them to do, a man for my successor in the Senate, but laid down a platform, and their nominee made a speech, carefully written and prepared, and well delivered, which that Conven- tion accepted as containing the Republican creed. I have no comment to make on that jmrt of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he represents me as form- ing a conspiracy with the Supreme Court, and with the late President of the United States and the present chief magistrate, having for my object the 1 . 1 . n . i r mrrnrr ■ •- =: " ' ■ •- = = 1=-« : - -wT- ., n— ;„ --.I— a - ^ r ~ , ^ - ^.._ —r^.-,- ^-_ , AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 passage of the Nebraska bill, the Dred Scott decision, and the extension of slavery, — a scheme of political tricksters, composed of Chief Justice Taney and his eight associates, two Presidents of the United States, and one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems me a conspirator of that kind, all I have to say is that I do not think so badly of the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal on earth, as to believe that they were capable in their action and decision of enter- ing into political intrigues for partisan purposes. I therefore shall only notice those parts of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he lays down his platform of principles, and tells you what he intends to do if he is elected to the Senate of the United States. [An old gentleman here rose on the platform and said : " Be particular now. Judge, be particular."] Mr. Douglas : My venerable friend here says that he will be gratified if I will be particular ; and in order that I may be so, I will read the language of Mr. Lincoln as reported by himself and published to the country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposition in these words : — *'eople with unfriendly laws. There is truth and wisdom in a remark made to me by an eminent Southern senator, when speaking of this AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAa 68 technical right to take slaves into the Territories. Said he, " I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence ; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour in any Territory or State unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regulations and remedies ; and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." So it would be in the Territories. See the illustration in Kansas. The Republicans have told you, during the whole history of that Territory, dovm to last winter, that the pro-slavery party in the Legislature had passed a pro-slavery code, establishing and sustaining slavery in Kansas, but that this pro-slavery Legislature did not truly represent the people, but was imposed upon them by an invasion from Missouri ; and hence the Legislature were one way, and the people another. Granting all tliis, and what has been the result ? With laws supporting slavery, but the people against, there are not as many slaves in Kansas to-day as there were on the day the Nebraska bill passed and the Missouri Compromise was repealed. Why ? Simply because slave-owners knew that if they took their slaves into Kansas, where a majority of the people were opposed to slavery, that it would soon be abolished, and they would lose their right of property in consequence of taking them there. For that reason they would not take or keep them there. If there had been a majority of the people in favor of slavery, and the climate had been favorable, they would have taken them there ; but the climate not being suitable, the interest of the people being opposed to it, and a majority of them against it, the slave-owner did not find it profitable to take his slaves there, and consequeutly there are not as many slaves there to-day as on the day the Missouri Compromise was repealed. This shows clearly that if the people do not want slavery they will keep it out ; and if they do want it, they will protect it. You have a good illustration of this in the Territorial history of this State. You all remember that by the Ordinance of 1787 slavery was prohibited in Illinois; yet you all know, particularly you old settlers who were here in Territorial times, that the Territorial Legislature, in defiance of that Ordinance, passed a law allowing you to go into Kentucky, buy slaves, and bring them into the Territory, having them sign indentures to serve you and your posterity ninety-nine years, and their posterity thereafter to do the same. This heredi- tary slavery was introduced in defiance of the Act of Congress. That was the exercise of popular sovereignty, — the right of a Territory to decide the ques- tion for itself in defiance of the Act of Congress. On the other hand, if the people of a Territory are hostile to slavery, they will drive it out. Consequently, this theoretical question raised upon the Dred Scott decision is worthy of no consideration whatsoever, for it is only brought into these political discussions and used as a hobby upon which to ride into office, or out of which to manu- facture political capital. But Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision I have reserved for my conclusion. His principal objection to that decision is that it was intended to deprive the negro of the rights of citizenship in the diflerent States of the Union. Well, suppose it was, — and there is no doubt that that was its legal effect, — what is his objection to it ? Why, he thinks that a negro ought to be permitted to have the rights of citizenship. He is in favor of negro citizen- ship, and opposed to the Dred Scott decision, because it declares that a negro is not a citizen, and hence is not entitled to vote. Here I have a direct issue 64 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN with Mr. Lincoln. I am not in favor of negro citizenship. I do not believe that a negro is a citizen or ought to be a citizen. I believe that this govern- ment of ours was founded, and wisely founded, upon the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men. I freely concede that humanity requires us to extend all the protection, all the privileges, all the immunities, to the Indian and the negro which they are capable of enjoying consistent with the safety of society. You may then ask me what are those rights, what is the nature and extent of the rights which a negi*o ought to have ? My answer is that this is a question for each State and each Territory to decide for itself. In Illinois we have decided that a negro is not a slave^ but we have at the same time determined that he is not a citizen and shall not enjoy any political rights. I concur in the wisdom of that policy, and am content with it. I assert that the sovereignty of Illinois had a right to determine that question as we have decided it, and I deny that any other State has a right to interfere with us or call us to account for that decision. In the State of Maine they liave decided by their Constitution that the negro shall exercise the elective franchise and hold office on an equality with the white man. Whilst I do not concur in the good sense or correct taste of that decision on the part of Maine, I have no disposition to quarrel with her. It is her business, and not ours. If the people of Maine desire to be put on an equality with the negro, I do not know that anybody in this State will attempt to prevent it If the white people of Maine think a negro their equal, and that he has a right to come and kill their vote by a negro vote, they have a right to think so, I suppose, and I have no disposition to interfere with them. Then, again, passing over to New York, we find in that State they have provided that a negro may vote, provided he holds $250 worth of property, but that he shall not unless he does ; that is to say, they will allow a negro to vote if he is rich, but a poor fellow they will not allow to vote. In New York they think a rich negro is equal to a white man. Well, that is a matter of taste with them. If they think so in that State, and do not cany the doctrine outside of it, and propose to interfere with us, I have no quarrel to make with them. It is their business. There is a great deal of philosophy and good sense in a saying of Fridley of Kane. Fridley had a lawsuit before a justice of the peace, and the justice decided it against him. This he did not like; and standing up and looking at the justice for a moment, " Well, Square," said he, " if a man chooses to make a darnation fool of himself, I suppose there is no law against it." That is all I have to say about these negro regulations and this negro voting in other States where they have systems difiTerent from ours. If it is their wish to have it so, be it so. There is no cause to complain. Kentucky has decided that it is not consistent with her safety and her prosperity to allow a negro to have either political rights or his freedom, and hence she makes him a slave. That is her business, not mine. It is her right under the Constitution of the country. The sov- ereignty of Kentucky, and that alone, can decide that question ; and when she decides it, there is no power on earth to which you can appeal to reverse it. Therefore, leave Kentucky as the Constitution has left her, a sovereign, inde- pendent State, with the exclusive right to have slavery or not, as she chooses ; and so long as I hold power I will maintain and defend her rights against any assaults, from whatever quarter they may come. I will never stop to inquire whether I approve or disapprove of the domestic institutions of a State. I maintain her sovereign rights. I defend her sovereignty from all assault, in the hope that she will join in defending us AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 when we are assailed by any outside power. How are we to protect our sov- ereign rights, to keep slavery out, unless we protect the sovereign rights to every other State to decide the question for itself ? Let Kentucky, or South Carolina, or any other State attempt to interfere in Illinois, and tell us that we shall establish slavery, in order to make it uniform, according to Mr. Lincoln's proposition, throughout the Union ; let them come here and tell us that we must and shall have slavery, — and I will call on you to follow me, and shed the last drop of our heart's blood in repelling the invasion and chastising their insolence. And if we would fight for our reserved rights and sovereign power in our own limits, we must respect the sovereignty of each other State. Hence, you find that Mr. Lincoln and myself come to a direct issue on this whole doctrine of slavery. He is going to wage a war against it every- where, not only in Illinois, but in his native State of Kentucky. And why ? Because he says that the Declaration of Independence contains this language : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and he asks whether that instrument does not declare that all men are created equal. Mr. Lincoln then goes on to say that that clause of the Declaration of Inde- pendence includes negroes. [" I say not"] Well, if you say not, I do not think you will vote for Mr, Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln goes on to ai^ue that the language " all men " included the negroes, Indians, and all inferior races. In his Chicago speech he says, in so many words, that it includes the negroes, that they were endowed by the Almighty with the right of equality with the white man, and therefore that that right is divine, — a right under the higher law ; that the law of God makes them equal to the white man, and therefore that the law of the white man cannot deprive them of that right. This is Mr. Lincoln's argument. He is conscientious in his belief. I do not question his sincerity ; I do not doubt that he, in his conscience, believes that the Almighty made the negro equal to the white man. He thinks that the negro is his brother. I do not think that the negro is any kin of mine at all. And here is the diflTerence between us. I believe that the Declaration of Independence, in the words, "all men are created equal," was intended to allude only to the people of the United States, to men of European birth or descent, being white men ; that they were created equal, and hence that Great Britain had no right to deprive them of their political and religious privileges ; but the signers of that paper did not intend to include the Indian or the negro in that declaration ; for if they had, would they not have been bound to abolish slavery in every State and Colony from that day? Re- member, too, that at the time the Declaration was put forth, every one of the thirteen colonies were slaveholding colonies; every man who signed that Declaration represented slaveholding constituents. Did those signers mean by that act to charge themselves and all their constituents with having vio- lated the law of God, in holding the negro in an inferior condition to the white man ? And yet, if they included negroes in that term, they were bound, as conscientious men, that day and that hour, not only to have abolished slavery throughout the land, but to have conferred political rights and privi- leges on the negro, and elevated him to an equality with the white man. ["They did not do it."] I know they did not do it; and the very fact that they did not shows that they did not understand the language they used to include any but the white race. Did they mean to say that the Indian, on this continent, was created equal to the white man, and that he was endowed 66 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN by the Almighty with inalienable rights, — rights so sacred that they could not be taken away by any constitution or law that man could pass ? Why, their whole action toward the Indian showed that they never dreamed that they were bound to put him on an equality. I am not only opposed to negro equality, but I am opposed to Indian equality. I am opposed to putting the coolies, now importing into this country, on an equality with us, or put- ting the Chinese or any inferior race on an equality with us. I hold that the white race, the European race, I care not whether Irish, German, French, Scotch, English, or to what nation they belong, so they are the white race, to be our equala And I am for placing them, as our fathers did, on an equality with us. Emigrants from Europe, and their descendants, constitute the people of the United States. The Declaration of Independence only included the white people of the United States. The Constitution of the United States was framed by the white people ; it ought to be administered by them, leaving each State to make such regulations concerning the negro as it chooses, allow- ing him political rights or not, as it chooses, and allowing him civil rights or not, as it may determine for itself. Let us only carry out those principles, and we will have peace and harmony in the different States. But Mr. Lincoln's conscientious scruples on this point govern his actions, and I honor him for following them, although I abhor the doctrine which he preaches. His conscientious scruples lead him to believe that the negro is entitled by divine right to the civil and political privileges of citizenship on an equality with the white man. For that reason he says he wishes the Dred Scott decision reversed. He wishes to confer those privileges of citizenship on the negro. Let us see how he will do it. He will first be called upon to strike out of the Constitution of Illinois that clause which prohibits free negroes and slaves from Kentucky or any other State coming into Illinois. When he blots out that clause, when he lets down the door or opens the gate for all the negro population to flow in and cover our prairies, until in midday they will look dark and black as night, — when he shall have done this, his mission will yet be unfulfilled. Then it will be that he will apply his principles of negro equality ; that is, if he can get the Dred Scott decision reversed in the mean time. He will then change the Constitution again, and allow negroes to vote and hold office, and will make them eligible to the Legislature, so that thereafter they can have the right men for United States Senators. He will allow them to vote to elect the Legislature, the Judges, and the Governor, and will make them eligible to the office of Judge or Governor, or to the Legislature. He will put them on an equality with the white man. What then ? Of course, after making them eligible to the judiciary, when he gets Cuffee elevated to the bench, he cer- tainly will not refuse his judge the privilege of marrying any woman he may select ! I submit to you whether these are not the legitimate consequences of his doctrine ? If it be true, as he says, that by the Declaration of Independ- ence and by divine law, the negro is created the equal of the white man ; if it be true that the Dred Scott decision is unjust and wrong, because it deprives the negro of citizenship and equality with the white man, — then does it not follow that if he had the power he would make negroes citizens, and give them all the rights and all the privileges of citizenship on an equality with white men ? I think that is the inevitable conclusion. I do not doubt Mr. Lincoln's conscientious conviction on the subject, and I do not doubt that he will carry out that doctrine if he ever has the power : but I resist it because I am utterly opposed to any political amalgamation or any other amalgamation AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 on this continent. We are witnessing the result ot giving civil and political rights to inferior races in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in the West India Islands. Those young men who went from here to Mexico to fight the battles of their country in the Mexican war can tell you the fruits of negro equality with the white man. They will tell you that the result of that equality is social amalgamation, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government. My friends, if we wish to preserve this government we must maintain it on the basis on which it was established ; to wit, the white basis. We must preserve the purity of the race not only in our politics, but in our domestic relations. We must then preserve the sovereignty of the States, and we must maintain the Federal Union by preserving the Federal Constitution inviolate. Let us do that, and oiir Union will not only be perpetual, but may extend until it shall spread over the entire continent. Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you too long. I have exhausted myself and wearied you, and owe you an apology for the desultory manner in which I have discussed these topics. I will have an opportunity of address- ing you again before the November election comes off. I come to you to appeal to your judgment as American citizens, to take your verdict of ap- proval or disapproval upon the discharge of my public duty and my principles as compared with those of Mr. Lincoln. If you conscientiously believe that his principles are more in harmony with the feelings of the American people and the interests and honor of the Bepublic, elect him. If, on the contrary, you believe that my principles are more consistent with those great principles upon which our fathers framed this government, then I shall ask you to so express your opinion at the polls. I am aware that it is a bitter and severe contest, but I do not doubt what the decision of the people of Illinois will be. I do not anticipate any personal collision between Mr. Lincoln and myself. You all know that I am an amiable, good-natured man, and I take great pleasure in bearing testimony to the fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind-hearted, amiable, good-natured gentleman, with whom no man has a right to pick a quarrel, even if he wanted one. He is a worthy gentleman. I have known him for twenty- five years, and there is no better citizen and no kinder-hearted man. He is a fine lawyer, possesses high ability, and there is no objection to him, except! ^ .the monstrous revolutionary doctrines with which he is identified and which ' he conscientiously entertains, and is determined to carry out if he gets the power. He has one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his object, and that is his alliance with certain men in this State claiming to be Democrats, whose avowed object is to use their power to prostrate the Demo- cratic nominees. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word against the Lecompton Constitution or its supporters. He is as silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting lecomp- ton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of Republican principles ! You know that that alliance exists. I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over. It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified must be carried out I shall be satisfied whatever way you decide. I have been sustained by the people of Illinois with a steadi- ness, a firmness, and an enthusiasm which makes my heart overflow with 68 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN gratituda If I was now to be consigned to private life I would have nothing to complain of. I would even then owe you a debt of gratitude which the balance of my life could not repay. But, my friends, you have discharged every obligation you owe to ma I have been a thousand times paid by the welcome you have extended to me since 1 have entered the State on my return home this time. Your reception not only discharges all obligations, but it furnishes inducement to renewed efforts to serve you in the future. If you think Mr. Lincoln will do more to advance the interests and elevate the character of Illinois than myself, it is your duty to elect him ; if you tliink he would do more to preserve the peace of the countiy and perpetuate the Union than myself, then elect him. I leave the question in your hands, and again tender you my profound thanks for the cordial and heartfelt wel- come tendered to me this evening. SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Delivered in Springfield, Saturday Evening, July 17, 1858. (Mr. Douglas was not present.) Fellow-Citizens : Another election, which is deemed an important one, is 'approaching, and, as I suppose, the Eepublican party will, without much difficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to the Legislature, we, the Bepublicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place, we have a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of the representation made several years ago, when the proportion of the population was far greater in the South (as compared with the North) than it now is ; and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the South, and we a correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are now to be represented as we were years ago, when the population was different, is to us, a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, according to law, a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants, taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of representation. We know what a fair apportionment of representation upon that census would give us. We know that it could not, if fairly made, fail to give the Republi- can party from six to ten more members of the legislature than they can probably get as the law now stands. It so happened at the last session of the Legislature that our opponents, holding the control of both branches of the Legislature, steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightly entitled to have upon the census already taken. The Legislature steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully en- titled to have upon the census taken of the population of the State. The Legislature would pass no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a member to the Legislature as three were in the Eepublican regions. Comparison was made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which com- pletely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed and tendered to the Republican Governor for his signature ; but principally for the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill fell without becoming a law. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 69 Another disadvantage under which we labor is, that there are one or two Democratic Senators who will be members of the next Legislature, and will vote for the election of Senator, who are holding over in districts in which we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if we only had the chance of an election. When we consider that there are but twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where they rightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantage not to be lightly re- garded. Still, so it is ; we have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the many things involved in the last general election for President, Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Super- intendent of Public Instruction, Members of Congress, of the Legislature, County OflScers, and so on, we allowed these things to happen by want of sufficient attention, and we have no cause to complain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is concerned. But we have some cause to complain of the refusal to give us a fair apportionment. There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which I will ask your attention. It arises out of the relative positions of the two per- sons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate. Senator Doug- las is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as cer- tainly, at no distant day, to be the President of the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, chargeships and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope ; but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and recep- tions beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could have brought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cab- bages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages aU, taken together, that the Eepublicans labor under. We have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf of the Kepublicans. I was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed, — I being in nowise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind that we have to fight this battle without many — perhaps without any — of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope those with whom I am sur- rounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to bring about the right result. After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New York ; and it was heralded that, like another Napoleon, he was lying by and framing the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington City, and published in the " Union," that he was framing his plan for the purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and dis- union speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th of June. Now, I do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have been able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences con- 70 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN firmatory of that allegation. I think I have been able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask your attention to some of them. What I shall point out, though not showing the whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as I suppose. They are not very numerous. The first is Popular Sovereignty. The sec- ond and third are attacks upon my speech made on the 16 th of Jun& Out of these three points — drawing within the range of popular sovereignty the question of the Lecompton Constitution — he makes his principal assault Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little carefuL Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of cannon, their marching ) and music, their fizzle-gigs and fireworks ; but I will not waste time with ! them. They are but the little trappings of the campaign. Coming to the substance, — the first point, — ** popular sovereignty." It is to be labelled upon the cars in which he travels ; put upon the hacks he rides in ; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners which wave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soups from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it carefully ; and if we examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied. I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has been said has had reference to the question of negro slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselves in the ordinary matters of domestic concern in the States and Territories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he sent up the Lecomp- ton Constitution) urged that the main point to which the public attention had been directed was not in regard to the great variety of small domestic matters, but was directed to the question of negro slavery ; and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to vote on that question, there was no rea- sonable ground of objection in regard to minor questions. Now, while I think that the people had not bad given, or offered them, a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, if there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question, the President's proposition would have been true to the utter- most. Hence, when hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood as applying what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor domestic matters of a Temtory or a State. Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of his life have been devoted to the question of " popular sovei-eignty," and that all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories ? If he means so to say he means to deceive ; because he and every one knows that the decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial ground of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form a State Constitution. So far as all that ground is concerned, the Judge is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but abso- lutely opposing it He sustains the decision which declares that the popular AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 will of the Territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their territorial existence. This being so, the period of time from the first settlement of a Territoiy till it reaches the point of forming a State Constitu- tion is not the thing that the Judge has fought for or is fighting for, but, on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fighting for, the thing that annihilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty. Well, so much being disposed of, what is left ? Why, he is contending for the right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution, to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say again, that is Quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the Judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution, I may be misunderstood ; but when you understand me correctly, my proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed, the right of the people, when they form a Constitution, to form it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it ; they, too, as well as the Eepublicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have not done it ; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the right of the people to form a Constitution for themselves. The differ- ence between the Buchanan men un the one hand, and the Douglas men and the Ilepublicans on the other, has not been on a question of principle, but on a question of fact. The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecompton Consti- tution had been fairly formed by the people or not Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more than the Douglas men or the Ilepublicaus. They have insisted that whatever of small irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitution were such as happen in the settlement of all new Territories. The question was. Was it a fair emanation of the people ? It was a question of fact, and not of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge Douglas voted with the Republi- cans upon that matter of fact. He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair emanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. With respect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right on their side, and that the Administration was wrong. But I state again that, as a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory, merging into a State, to form a Con- stitution for themselves without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for ? Is he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes ? Does he expect to stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become a god, in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in all God's creation is opposing ? Now something in regard to the Lecomp- ton Constitution more specially ; for I pass from this other question of popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on an intelligent community. As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the question of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not, Judge Doug- las, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly the argument against the Administration ; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it, — as being par excellence 72 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his cl&ss of men there formed the number three, and no more. In the House of Representatives his class of men — the Anti-Lecompton Democrats — formed a number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty. Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety-four Republi- cans. I do not say that I am precisely accumte in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am making of it. Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that work, and the hundred none of it ? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and advancement of the twenty ? My understanding is, when a common job is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so understand it. He de- clares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible. Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more credit than othei*s for the performance of that good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the Republicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in that good work, and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he would ? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground that he performed a good act which was never expected of him ? He says I have a proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon the moun- tains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus : " Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance." And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here and say: "I am the only just person; and you are the ninety-nine sinners ! " Bepentance before forgiveness is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans grant his forgiveness. How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in regard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it ? He says he did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or slave consti- tution, and he would have you understand that the Republicans made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whether the State was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our Republican Senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecompton even before he did. Why did he oppose it ? Pai-tly, as he declares, because the members of the Convention who frauied it were not fairly elected by the people ; that the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 73 people were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered ; and that the people of whole counties, in some instances, were not registered. For these reasons he declares the Constitution was not an emanation, in any true sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to the mode of sub- mitting the Constitution back to the people. But bearing on the question of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes important It was made a little while before the election of the delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every reason to hope and believe the election would be fair ; and if any one failed to vote, it would be his own culpable fault. I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer I made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated his Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that Judge Douglas could be ignorant of these facts, which every one else in the nation so well knew. I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I may have occasion to refer to one or both. When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, in New York, as appears by two speeches I have heard him deliver since his arrival in Illi- nois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine, delivered here on the 16th of June last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He told us that at Chicago a week ago last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington last night Doubtless, he repeated it again to-day, though I did not hear him. In the two first places — Chicago and Bloomington — I heard him ; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech, — w?ien, he did not say ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. He says it was evidently pre- pared with great cara I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors than others, — perhaps scai-cely so much; but I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. If I had made any mistake, I was willing to be corrected ; if I had drawn any inference in regard to Judge Douglas, or any one else, which was not war- ranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted my- self upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to know it. Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward Judge Doug- las, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I found that he had carefuUy examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations of which he thought fit to complain. In neither of the two speeches I have mentioned did he make any such complaint I will thank any one who will inform me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed out anything I had stated respecting him, as being erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. I have reason to be gratified that the care and caution used in that speech left it so that he, most of all others interested in discovering error, has not been able to point out one thing against him which he could say was wrong. He seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of this campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. His attempt at quot- 10 74 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ing is from a passage which I believe I can quote accurately from memory, I shall make the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as I have ali^eady said, in order that the Judge shall be left entirely without excuse for misrep- resenting me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real exigen- cies of the case. I set out in this campaign with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shall never be ; but that which constitutes the inside of a gentle- man I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to practise than others. It was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon prin- ciple, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up. He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections ; that I propose all the local institutions of the different States shall become consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construction ? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant ; and that while I had protested against entering into the Slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions. I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of this govei-nment placed it and left it I do not understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people of the Free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the Slave States. I was not using that passage for the purpose for which he infers I did use it. I said : — '' We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was created for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agita- tion. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free ; it will become all one thing or all the other. £ither the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South." Now you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my vnsh on any- thing. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own ; I simply expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge perceive a distinction between a jnirpose and an expectation f I have often expressed an expectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish to die. I said at Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this government has endured, half slave and half free, for eighty-two years. I understand that little bit of history. I expressed the opinion I did because I perceived — or thought I perceived — a new set of causes introduced. 1 4id say at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 to see the spread of slavery arrested, and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I said that because I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the slavery question. I have believed — and now believe — the public mind did rest on that belief up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill. Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken ; but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise. But upon that event I became convinced that either I had been resting in a delusion, or the institution was being placed on a new basis, — a basis for making it perpetual, national, and universal. Subsequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I believe that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that purpose. So believing, I have since then considered that question a paramount one. So believing, I thought the public mind will never rest till the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand, or, on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed out. I have expressed that opinion, and I entertain it to- night It is denied that there is any tendency to the nationalization of slavery in these States. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, when they were pre- senting him canes, silver plate, gold pitchers, c^nd the like, for assaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that when this Constitution was formed, it was the belief of no man that slavery would last to the present day. He said, what I think, that the framers of our Constitution placed the institution of slavery where the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But he went on to say that the men of the present age, by their experience, have become wiser than the framers of the Constitution, and the invention of cotton gin had made the perpetuity of slavery a necessity in this country. As another piece of evidence tending to this same point : Quite recently in Virginia, a man — the owner of slaves — made a will providing that after his death certain of his slaves should have their freedom if they should so choose, and go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. They chose to be liberated. But the persons to whom they would descend as property claimed them as slaves. A suit was instituted, which finally came to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and was therein decided against the slaves upon the ground that a negro cannot make a choice ; that they had no legal power to choose, — could not perform the condition upon which their freedom depended. I do not mention this with any purpose of criticising it, but to connect it with the arguments as affording additional evidence of the change of senti- ment upon this question of slavery in the direction of making it perpetual and national. I argue now as I did before, that there is such[a tendency ; and I am backed, not merely by the facts, but by the open confession in the Slave States. And now as to the Judge's inference that because I wish to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction, — placed where our fathers origi- nally placed it, — I wish to annihilate the State Legislatures, to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green Mountains, to freeze ice in Florida, to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairie^ — that I am in favor of all these ridiculous and impossible things. 76 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if, when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from free territory ; when courts did have the fashion of deciding that taking a slave into a free country made him free, — I say it is a sufficient answer to ask if any of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation and uniformity did actually follow. Who heaid of any such thing because of the Ordinance of '87 ? because of the Missouri Bestriction ? because of the numerous court decisions of that character ? Now, as to the Dred Scott decision ; for upon that he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. This is one haJf the onslaught, and one third of the entire plan of the cam- paign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, and against Dred Scott and his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the decision. I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think that in respect for judicial authority my humble history would not suffer in comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to that decision ; the member of Congress, his ; the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule of political action for the people and all 'the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as a •political rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs. When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made this same point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which he opposed for at least several years. Last night, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot to remember that part of it. He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have turned the tables against himself on that very point. I renew the effort to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority ; and therefore I add something to the authority in favor of my own position. I wish to show that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that heretofore presented. I do not expect to convince the Judge. It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. Even turn it upon him, — the sharp point against him, and gaff him through, — he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place of it In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents ; but I must b^ to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems he had been presented by a gentle- man of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the " Eepublican," and he was writing in acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope that the work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say: — ** That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. Ton seem, in page 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, — a very f AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 77 dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corpis. Their maxim is, * Bonl jndicis est ampliaro jurisdictionem ; ' and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other func- tionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign with themselves." Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefiferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy. Now, 1 have said no more than this, — in fact, never quite so much as this ; at least I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson. Let us go a little further. You remember we once had a National Bank. Some one owed the bank a debt ; he was sued, and sought to avoid payment on the ground that the bank was unconstitutionaL The case went to the y Supreme Court, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitutional. / The whole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General Jackson himself asserted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold a National Bank to be constitutional, even though the court had decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a Nationll Bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitutional power to charter a bank has gone into the Democratic platform, at their National Conventions, and was brought forward and reaffirmed in their last Convention at Cincinnati. They have contended for that declaration, in the very teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an absolute nidlity. That decision, I repeat, is repudiated in the Cincin- nati platform ; and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no farther. Judge Douglas vaunts in the very speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott decision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, with respect to decisions of the Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. The plain truth is simply this : Judge Douglas is /or Supreme Court decisions when he likes ; and against them when he does not like them. He is for the Dred Scott decision because it tends to nationalize slavery; because it is part of the original combination for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till this. On the contrary, I have no recol- lection that he was ever particularly in favor of one till this. He never was in favor of any, nor opposed to any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men everywhere, judge ye between him and me upon this issue. He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most, — that it has no practical effect ; that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that the thing which determines whether a man is free or a slave is rather concrete than abstract. I think you would conclude that it was, if your liberty depended upon it, and so would Judge Douglas, if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question of spreading slavery over the new Territories that he considers it as 78 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN being merely an abstract matter, and one of no practical importance. How has the planting of slavery in new countnes always been effected ? It has now been decided that slavery cannot be kept out of our new Territories by any legal means. In what do our new Territories now differ in this respect from the old Colonies when slavery was first planted within them ? It was planted, as Mr. Clay once declared, and as history proves true, by individual men, in spite of the wishes of the people ; the Mother Government refusing to prohibit it, and withholding from the people of the Colonies the authority to prohibit it for themselves. Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just causes of complaint against Great Britain by the Colonies, and the best apology we can now make for having the institution amongst us. In that pre- cise condition our Nebraska politicians have at last succeeded in placing our own new Territories ; the government will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it I defy any man to find any difference between the policy which originally planted slavery in these Colonies and that policy which now prevails in our new Territories. If it doe^ not go into them, it is only because no individual wishes it to go. The Judge indulged himself doubtless to-day with the question as to what I am going to do with or about the Dred Scott decision. Well, Judge, will you please tell me what you did about the bank decision ? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank decision ? You succeeded in breaking down the moral effect of that decision : did you find it necessary to amend the Constitu- tion, or to set up a court of negroes in order to do it ? There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a very affectionate leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. Last evening, in a soit of weeping tone, he described to us a deathbed scene. He had been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in Ids last moments, in order that the genius of " popular sover- eignty " might duly descend from the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy successor. He could do no less than promise that he would devote the remainder of his life to '* popular sovereignty ; " and then the great statesman departs in peace. By this part of the " plan of the cam- paign " the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears shall be drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as large as half-grown apples. Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned ; but it did not quite come to a deathbed scene as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to see how quick these compromise-breakers administer on the political effects of their dead adversaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, and dividing the assets among themselves. If I should be found dead to-morrow morning, nothing but my insignificance could prevent a speech being made on my author- ity, before the end of next week. It so happens that in that " popular sover- eignty " with which Mr. Clay was identified, the Missouri Compromise was expressly reserved ; and it was a little singular if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge Douglas on purpose to have that compromise repealed. Again, the Judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay when he first brought in his Nebraska bill. He left the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, and in his report accompanying the bill he told the world he did it on purpose. The manes of Mr. Clay must have been in great agony till thirty days later, when " popular sovereignty " stood forth in all its glory. One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tormented himself with hor- rors about my disposition to make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to show that I have said any AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 79 such thing, or that it legitimately follows from anything I have said, but he rushes on with his assertions. I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration of Inde- pendence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. In his con- struction of the Declaration last year, he said it only meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come amongst us since the Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Bussians in Asia ; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from the principles of our Declaration of Independence ? I expect ere long he will introduce another amendment to his definition. He is not at all particular. He is satisfied with anything which does not endanger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, " I am the superior, and you are the inferior " ? My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. They are not our equal in color ; but I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects ; they are equal in their right to ** life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly the negro is not our equal in color, — perhaps not in many other respects ; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. When our government was established we had the institution of slaver}' among us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle and secured our own independence. The framers of the Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other institutions at the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate it they might lose much of what they had already gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave trade at the end of twenty years. They also prohibited it in the Territories where it did not exist. They did what they could, and yielded to the necessity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows from that necessity. What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge Douglas says he has read so carefully. I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string of facts constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the parts played by others. I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last Presi- ' dential election, by the impression that the people of the Territories might • exclude slavery if they chose, wheit.it,was_knr>wn in advance by the conspir- ( 80 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ators that the court was to decide that neither Congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. These charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. He has not, so far as I know, contradicted those charges. In the two speeches which I heard he certainly did not On his own tacit admission, I renew that charge. I charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. The following is the correspondence between the two rival candidates for the United States Senate : — Mb. Lincoln to Mb. Douglas. Chioaoo, III., Jaly 24, 186S. Hon. S. A. Douglas : My dear Sir, — Will it be Agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the present canvass 1 Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive your answer ; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of such arrangement. Your obedient servant, A. Lincoln. Mb. Douglas to Mb. Lincoln. Chicago, July 24, 186a Hon. A. Lincoln : Dear Sir, — Your note of this date, in which you inquire if it would be agreeable to me to make an arrangement to divide the time and address the same audiences during the present canvass, was handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent events have interposed difficulties in the way of such an arrangement. I went to Spring6eld last week for the purpose of conferring with the Democratic State Central Committee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, and with them, and under their advice, made a list of appointments covering the entire period until late in October. The people of the several localities have been notified of the times and places of the meetings. Those appointments have all been made for Democratic meetings, and arrangements have been made by which the Democratic candidates for Congress, for the Legislature, and other offices, will be present and address the people. It is evident, therefore, that these various candidates, in connection with myself, will occupy the whole time of the day and evening, and leave no opportunity for other speeches. Besides, there is another consideration which should be kept in mind. It has been suggested recently that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third can- didate for the United States Senate, who, with youreelf, should canvass the State in opposition to me, with no other purpose than to insure my defeat, by dividing the Democratic party for your benefit. If I should make this arrangement with you, it is more than probable that this other candidate, who has a common object with you, would desire to become a party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same stand ; so that he and you, in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case. I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if it was your original intention to invite such an arrangement, that you should have waited until after I had made my AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 81 appointmenta, inasmuch as we were both here in Chicago together for several days after my arrival, and again at Bloomlngton, Atlanta, Lincoln, and Springfield, where it was well known I went for the purpose of consulting with the State Central Com- mittee, and agreeing u]K)n the plan of the campaign. While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at liberty to make any arrange- ments which would deprive the Democratic candidates for Congress, State offices, and the Legislature from participating in the discussion at the various meetings desig- nated by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, in order to accommodate you as far as it is in my power to do so, take the responsibility of making an arrange- ment with you for a discussion between us at one prominent point in each Congres- sional District in the State, except the second and sixth districts, where we have both spoken, and in each of which cases you had the concluding speech. If agreeable to you, I will indicate the following places as those most suitable in the several Congres- sional Districts at which we should speak, to wit : Freeport, Ottawa, Galesburg, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro, and Charleston. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in regard to the mode of conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the several places, subject to the condition that where appointments have already been made by the Democratic State Central Committee at any of those places, I must insist upon you meeting me at the times specified. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, S. A. Douglas. Mb. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. Spbinofixld, July S9, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas : Dear Sir, — Yours of the 24th in relation to an arrangement to divide time, and address the same audiences, is received ; and, in apology for not sooner replying, allow me to say, that when I sat by you at dinner yesterday, I was not aware that you had answered my note, nor, certainly, that my own note had been presented to you. An hour after, I saw a copy of your answer in the Chicago ''Times," and reaching home, I found the original awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted! unfairness on my part are unjust, and with the hope that you did not very considerately make them, I proceed to reply. To your state- ment that " It has been suggested, recently, that an arrangement had been made to bring out a third candidate for the United States Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I can only say, that such suggestion must have been made by yourself, for certainly none such has been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did not deliberately conclude, as you insinuate, tliat I was expecting to draw you into an arrangement of terms, to be agreed on by yourself, by which a third candidate and myself, " in concert, might be able to take the opening and closing speech in every case." As to your surprise that I did not sooner make the proposal to divide time with you, I can only say, I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did not know but that such proposal would come from you ; I waited, respectfully, to see. It may have been well known to you that you went to Springfield for the purpose of agree- ing on the plan of campaign ; but it was not so known to me. When your appoint- ments were announced in the papers, extending only to the 21st of August, I, for the first time considered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then resolved- that, if my friends concurred, I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed aiTangeraent could derange your plans after the latest of your appointments already made. After t\at, there was, before the election, largely over two months of clear time. For you to' say that we have alraady spoken at Chicago and Springfield, and that on both occasions I had the conch^ding speech, is hardly a fair statement. The truth rather is this : At Chicago, July 9th, you made a carefully prepared conclusion on my 11 82 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN speech of June 16th. Twenty-four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You had six days to prepare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on the 1 6th. Twenty-four hours after, I concluded again on you at Springfield. In the mean time, you had made another conclusion on meat Springfield, which I did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke ; so that your speech made in daylight, and mine at night, of the 1 7th, at Springfield, were hoth made in perfect independence of each other. The dates of making all these speeches will show, I think, that in the matter of time for preparation, the advantage has all heen on your side, and that none of the external circumstances have stood to my advantage. I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the seven places you have named, and at your own times, provided you name the times at once, so that I, as well as you, can have to myself the time not covered hy the arrangement. As to the other details, I wish perfect reciprocity and no more. I wish as much time as you^ and that con- clusions shall alternate. That is alL Your ohedient servant^ .A. LiKOOLN. P. S. — As matters now stand, I shall be at no more of your exclusive meetinga; and for about a week from to-day a letter from you will reach me at Springfield. A. L. Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. Bement, Piatt Co., III., Jaly 80, 1858. Dear Sir, — Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a joint dis- cussion at one prominent point in each Congressional District, as stated in my previ- ous letter, was received this morning. The times and places designated are as follows : — Ottawa, La Salle County August Slst, 1858. Freeport, Stephenson County *• 27th, " Jonesboro, Union County September 15th, " Charleston, Coles County *' 18th, " Qalesburgh, Knox County . October 7th, '* Quincy, Adams County " 13th, ** Alton, Madison County «« 16th, " I agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately open and close the discussion. I will speak at Ottawa one hour, you can reply, occupying an hour and a half, and I will then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, you shall open the discussion and speak one hour ; I will follow for an hour and a half, and yon can then reply for half an hour. We will alternate in like manner in each successive place. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. A. Douglas. Hon. A Lincoln, Springfield, IlL Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douolas. Springfield, July 31, 1858. Hon. S. A. Douglas : Dear Sir, — Yours of yesterday, naming places, times, and terms, for joint discussions between us, was received this morning. Although, by the terms, as you propose, you take four opening.^ and closes, to my three, I accede, and thus close the arrangement. I direct this to y^^u at Hillsboro, and shall try to have both your letter and this appear in the '' Journal *^ and '' Register " of Monday morning. Your obedient servant, A. Lincoln. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, August 21, 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear before you to-day for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we are present here to- day for the purpose of having a joint discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties ; and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feel- ing which pervades the public mind in regard to the questions dividing us. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patri- otic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An old line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional line ; they were not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the Free and Slave States, but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, they agreed on the great slavery "question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig party and the Demo- cratic party agreed on this slavery question, while they differed on those matters of expediency to which I have referred. The Whig party and the Democratic party jointly adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of this slavery question in all its forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his right and Cass on his left, and sustained by the patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had devised and enacted the Compromise measures of 1850. In 1851 the Whig party and the Democratic party united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing and approving the principles of the Compro- mise measures of 1850, as the proper adjustment of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in Convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating a candidate for the Presidency, the first thing it did was to declare the Compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in principle, a suitable adjustment of that question. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] My friends, silence will be more accept- able to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic Conven- tion assembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, it also adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Thus you see that up to 1853-*54, the Whig party- and the Democratic party both stood on the same platform with regard to the slavery question. That platform was the right of the people of each State and eachiTerriv »ry to decide their local and domestic institutions for themselves, subject only v.o the Federal Constitution. 84 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN During the session of Congress of 1853-'54, 1 introduced into the Senate oi the United States a bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in the Compromise measures of 1850, approved by the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic party in National Con- vention in 1852. In order that there might be no misunderstanding in rela- tion to the principle involved in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of the Act in these words : '* It is the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution." Thus you see that up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was brought into Congress for the purpose of carrying out the principles which both parties had up to that time indorsed and approved, there had been no division in this country in regard to that principle except the opposition of the Abolitionists. In the House of Sepresentatives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a resolution asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted in the aflBrmative, and only four men voted against it, and those four were old line Abolitionists. In 1854, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered into an arrange- ment, one with the other, and each with his respective friends, to dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic party on the other, and to connect the members of both into an Abolition party, under the name and disguise of a Republican party. The terms of that arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull have been published to the world by Mr. Lincoln's special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., and they were, that Lincoln should have Shields's place in the United States Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the old Whig party all over the State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever; and Trumbull went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolitionism in its milder and lighter form, and trying to Abolitionize the Democratic party, and bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound hand and foot into the Abolition camp. In pursuance of the arrangement, the parties met at Springfield in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into the Abolition camp the old line Whigs, and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. They laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Eepublican party, which was to be thus constructed. I have the resolutions of their State Convention then held, which was the first mass State Convention ever held in Illinois by the Black Bepublican party, and I now hold them in my hands, and will read a part of them, and cause the others to be printed. Here are the most important and material resolutions of this Abolition platform : — "1. jResolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or incapable of restor- ing the government to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been con- nected therewith, and to organize new parties, upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and exigencies of the nation may demand. "2. Resolved y That the times iraperr'ively demand the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all previous party atta limonts, names, and predilections, we unite AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 ourselves tegether in defence of the liberty and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter co-opemte as the Republican party, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes : To bring the administration of the government back to the control of ^rst principles ; to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Ter- ritories ; that, as the Constitution of the United States vests in the States, and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the Union ; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; to exclude slavery from all the Terri- tories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquirement of any more Territories, unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. '* 3. Eesolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such Constitu- tional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties." Now, gentlemen, your Black Eepublicans have cheered every one of those propositions, and yet I venture to say that you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to come out and say that he is now in favor of each one of them. That these propositions, one and all, constitute the platform of the Black Bepublican party of this day, I have no doubt ; and when you were not aware for what purpose I was reading them, your Black Bepublicans cheered them as good Black Bepublican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed and carry it out. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the uncon- ditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them. I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States. I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line. I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, unless slaver}^ is prohibited therein. I want hia answer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Aboli- tion platform is not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions, in order that, when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the same questions to him. My principles are the same everywhere I can pro- claim them alike in the North, the South, the East, and the West. My prin- ciples will apply wherever the Constitution prevails, and the American flag waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln's principles will bear trans- planting from Ottawa to Joneaboro ? I put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I have a right to an answer, for I quote from the platform of the Bepublican party, made by himself and others at the time that party was formed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the old Whig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the 86 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Abolition party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty-five years. There were many points of sympathy between us when we first got acquainted. We were both compara- tively boys, and both struggling with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the town of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was more successful in his occupation than I was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who perform with admirable skill everything which they undertake. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, and when a cabinet- maker I made a good bedstead and tables, although my old boss said I suc- ceeded better with bureaus and secretaries than with anything else ; but I believe that Lincoln was always more successful in business than I, for his business enabled him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, however, and had a sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we both had in life. He was then just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper ; could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the town together ; and the dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a horse-race or fist- fight excited the admiration and won the praise of everybody that was present aud participated. I sympathized with him because he was struggling with difficulties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with me in the Legislature in 1836, when we both retired, and he subsided, or became submerged, and he was lost sight of as a public man for some years. In 1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated proviso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of Congress from the Sanga- mon district. I was then in the Senate of the United States, and was glad to welcome my old friend and companion. Whilst in Congress, he distin- guished himself by his opposition to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country ; and when he returned home he found that the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and he was again submerged, or obliged to retire into private life, forgotten by his former friends. He came up again in 1854, just in time to make this Abolition or Black Republican platform, in company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred Douglass, for the Republican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own contemporaries. He was born and raised in old Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but, removing to Georgia, turned Nullifier when Nullification was popular, and as soon as he disposed of his clocks and wound up his business, migrated to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, and made his appear- ance in 1841 as a member of the Legislature. He became noted as the author of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought infamy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that measure consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public meeting in the hall of the House of Representatives, and replied to his repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and asserting the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed, and every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull's malignity has followed me since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. These two men having formed this combination to Abolitionize the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of ff-tf'f^-^ "''-■■-. ... AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 lited States, in pursuance of their bargain, are now carrying out that ament. Matheny states that Trumbull broke faith; that the bargain •at Lincoln should be the Senator in Shields's place, and Trumbull was i for mine ; and the story goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having '. of four or five Abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the ; ; he would not let them vote for Lincoln, and which obliged the rest Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition Senator, are a number of authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and ose that even Mr. Lincoln will not deny it Lincoln demands that he shall have the place intended for Trumbull, imbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is stumping the State ing me for the purpose of securing the position for Lincoln, in order to aim. It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Eepublican ation was empanelled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it . this account that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their ad their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere, Browning was y, Wentworth was not to be considered ; they had no man in the Repub- )arty for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that hould carry out the arrangement. iving formed this new party for the benefit of deserters from Whiggery, leserters from Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition platform i I have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and proclaims his Abolition nes. Let me read a part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the 3ntion which nominated him for the Senate, he said : — In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and 1. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' J believe this government t endure permanently half slave and katf free. I do not expect the Union to jsolved, — I do not expect the house to fall ; hut I do expect it vnll cease to be ?{/. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of *y will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction^ or its advocates ujill it forward till it shall become alike lavful in all the States^ — old as well as Vorth as well as South." Good," " good," and cheers.] am delighted to hear you Black Eepublicans say "good." I have no that doctrine expresses your sentiments, and I will prove to you if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary, and destructive of the mce of this government. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I have says that this government cannot endure permanently in the same con- . in which it was made by its framera, — divided into Free and Slave s. He says that it has existed for about seventy yeara thus divided, and e tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the same principles and 3 same relative condition in which our fathers made it. Why can it not divided into Free and Slave States ? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, son, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made this govem- , divided into Free States and Slave States, and left each State perfectly ;yo do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on ;ame principles on which our fathers made it ? They knew when they ed the Constitution that in a country as wide and broad as this, with a variety of climate, production, and interest, the people necessarily red different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew V ~»*"~*«~»— . 88 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that the laws and regulations which would suit the granite hills ( Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of South Caroli they therefore provided that each State should retain its own Legislat its own sovereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased its own limits, in all that was local and not national. One of the r rights of the States was the right to regulate the relations between and servant, on the slavery question. At the time the Constitute framed, there were thirteen States in the Union, twelve of which wen holding States and one a Free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniJ preached by Mr. Lincoln, that the States should all be free or all be sla prevailed, and what would have been the result? Of course, the slaveholding States would have overruled the one Free State, and . would have been fastened by a Constitutional provision on every inch American Eepublic, instead of being left, as our fathers wisely left it, • State to decide for itself. Here I assert that unifonnity in the loa and institutions of the different States is neither possible or desiral uniformity had been adopted when the government was established, i* inevitably have been the uniformity of slavery everywhere, or else th formity of negro citizenship and negro equality everywhere. We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opi)osed to the Dred decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it depri\ negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the first anc reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the 1 States and its decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring up negro the rights and privileges of citizenship ? Do you desire to strike our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairie black settlements ? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can sei hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizen voters, on an equality with yourselves? If you desire negro citizens you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Eepublican party, who are in fa^ the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizens any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men anc posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon nc Indians, and other inferior races. Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Ab< orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and chi: reads from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created and then asks. How can you deprive a negro of that equality which Gc the Declaration of Independence awards to him ? He and they maintai negro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they have a ri.. say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belie the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother ; but for my owr I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he brother, or any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evidently learned by •«»i»#*»^*-. AND STEPHEN A. DOUOLAS. 89 Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Famsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Aboli- tionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights, which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Now I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position. I do not hold that because the negro is our inferior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a con- clusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to extend to our inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public good. The question then arises. What rights and privileges are consistent with the public good ? This is a question which each State and each Territory must decide for itself: Illinois has decided it for herself. We have pro- vided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, his person and his property, only depriving him of all political rights whatso- ever, and refusing to put him on an equality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is satisfactory to the Democratic party and to me ; and if it were to the Eepublicans, there would then be no question upon the subject. But the Republicans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your rights and privileges. They assert the Dred Scott decision to be monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Ken- tucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only ques- tion which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, What shall be done with the free negro ? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned; we have prohibited it in Illinois forever ; and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would. But when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote ; whilst Maine, on the other band, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro ; 12 90 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN but still I am not going to quarrel withMaine for differing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, without interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to vote, provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of prop- erty, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distinction whatever between a negro who held property and one who did not, yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that distinction, it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. ; Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popular sovereigftty.^ which guarantees to each State and Territory the righttolhrasTrpIeases on all things, local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their institutions differ ? Our fathers in- tended that our institutions should differ. They knew that" the North and the South, having different climates, productions, and interests, required dif- ferent institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this government Mr. Lincoln and the Bepublican party set themselves up as wiser than these men who made this government, which has flourished for seventy years under the principle' of popular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people ; we have crossed the Alleghany mountains and filled up the whole Northwest, turning the prairie into a gar- den, and building up churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity where before there was nothing but savage barbarism. Under that principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the face of the earth ; and if we only adhere to that principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the North Star that shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world. And why can we not adhere to the great principle of self-government, upon which our institutions were originally based ? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and his y party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. They are trying to array all the / Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional war ; between the Free States and the Slave States, in order that the one or the J other may be driven to the wall. I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy an half hour in replying to him. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. My Fellow-Citizens : When a man hears himself somewhat misrepre- sented, it provokes him, — at least, I find it so with myself ; but when mis- representation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 91 that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man — not even Judge Douglas — can prove it, hecatise it is not true. I have no doubt he is " consdentiovs " in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Eepublican party in 1854, 1 say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have anything to do with them. I believe this is true about those resolutions : There was a call for a Convention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that my friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it, I think this is true, and I think if he will remember accurately, he will be able to recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when the Convention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell County. It is true they did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee ; but I refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig party, I have the means of kfnmving about that : Judge Douglas cannot have ; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is " conscientious " about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all the old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative ; but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man says he kjiows a thing, then he must show how he knows it I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be " conscientious " on the subject Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things ; but in regard to that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makesi, when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitionizing the old Whig party, I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of the position I took in that contest of 1854 Voice : " Put on your specs." Mr. Lincoln : Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so ; I am no longer a young man. " This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.^ The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us the chief materials enabling us to correctly judge whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. ^ This extract from Mr. Lincoln's Peoria speech of 1854 was read by him in the Ottawa debate, but was not reported fully or accurately in either the *' Times " or *' Press and Tribune." It is in- serted now as necessary to a complete report of the debate. 92 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ^ I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong, — wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can he found inclined to take it. " This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world, — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites ; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, — criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting tliat there is no right principle of action but self- interest, ** Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances ; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-tiop Abolitionists ; while some Northern ones go South and become most cruel slave-masters. *' When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, — to their own native land. But a moment's reflec- tion would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may he in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days ; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then 1 Free them all and keep them among us as underlings 1 Is it quite certain that this betters their condition 1 I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate ; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next 1 Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals 1 My own feelings will not admit of this ; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual eman- cipation might be adopted ; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. " When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. ** But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Afiica, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle ; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter." " ■'■••^--. ^--.■■r-*-. •■•- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 93 I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates ; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law. Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length ; but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it ; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that 1 have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natuiral rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the eq^ial o/Jtidge Doiiglas, and the equal of every living man. Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The Judge is wofuUy at fault about his early friend Lincoln being a "grocery- keeper." I don't know as it would be a great sin, if I had been ; but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the workl. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a little still-house, up at the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend the Judge is equally at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you what he can prove, by referring to the record. You remember I was an old Whig, and whenever the Demo- cratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth ; and the Judge has the right to make all he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexi- can war, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him. As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the Judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that ** a house divided against itself cannot stand." Does the Judge say it can stand ? V 94 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I don't know whether he does or not The Judge does not seem to be attend- ing to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of say- ing something seriously. I know that the Judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misapply it ; and the Judge has a right to urge that, in my application, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not misapply it. When he undertakes to say that because I think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing fi*om differences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make " a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among tJiese varieties in the institutions of the country ? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our govern- ment, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assem- blage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development we have, — whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division ? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to t this question, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when the Judge i reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it, — restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinc- tion. But lately, I think — and in this I charge nothing on the Judge's motives — lately, I think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believe we shall not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new. North as well as South. Now, I believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington and Jef- ferson and Madison placed it, it would he in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind uH>uld, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years, if it should live so long, in the States <■■.*• s { AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 96 where it exists ; yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. A Voice : " Then do you repudiate Popular Sovereignty ? *' v Mr. Lincoln : Well, then, let \is talk about Popular Sovereignty ! What is Popular Sovereignty ? Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the Territories ? I will state — and I have an anle man to watch me — my understanding is that Popular Sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. I do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in a Terri- tory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one ; but I do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them. When I made my .speech at Springfield, of which the Judge complains, and from which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at alL I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a war between the Free and Slave States. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it It is just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence in producing it, whether I intend it or not But can it be true that placing this institution upon the original basis — the basis upon which our fathers placed it — can have any tendency to set the Northern and the Southern States at war with one another, or that it can have any ten- dency to make the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane, because they raise it in Louisiana, or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do grow ? The Judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. Does the Judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of government ? I think he says in some of his speeches — indeed, I have one here now — that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and therefore he set about studying the subject upon original princi- ples, and upon original principles he got up the Nebraska bill! I am fighting it upon these '* original principles," — fighting it in the Jeifersonian, Washing- tonian, and Madisonian fashion. Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing, to the people of this country what I believed was the truth, — that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among those who have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with this bit of comment : — ** We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result of pre- concert ; but when we see a Ic t of framed timbers, different portions of which we ^tm 96 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Eoger, and James, for instance, — and when we see these tim- bers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even the scaffolding, — or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in, -^ in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck." When my friend Judge Douglas came to Chicago on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an harangue there, in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it ; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as being a " kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman," notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on and eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to marrying together. Then, as the Judge had complimented me with these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), 1 was a little *' taken,*' for it came from a great man. I was not very much accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than any other man, and got less of it. As the Judge had so flattered me, 1 could not make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with me ; so I went to work to show him that he misunder- stood the whole scope of my speech, and that I really never intended to set the people at war with one another. As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I used this expression, that 1 claimed no right under the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the Slave States and interfere with the institutions of slavery. He says upon that : Lincoln will not enter into the Slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over ! He runs on, step by step, in the horse- chestnut style of argument, until in the Springfield speech he says : " Unless he shall be successful in firing his batteries, until he shall have extinguished slavery in all the States, the Union shall be dissolved." Now, I don't think that was exactly the way to treat " a kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I know if 1 had asked the Judge to show when or where it was I had said that, if I did n't succeed in firing into the Slave States until slavery should be extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he could not have shown it. I understand what he would do. He would say, " I don't mean to quote from 3"ou, but this was the result of what you say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now. Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression from me f In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought I might as well attend to my own business a little, and I recalled his attention as well as I could to this chaise of conspiracy to nationalize slavery. 1 called his attention to the fact tKat he had acknowledged, in ray hearing twice, that he had carefully read the speech, and, in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that I had a right then to renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward 1 met the Judge at Clinton, — that is to say, I was on the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAa 97 ground, but not in the discussion, — and heard him make a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first time ; and his plea when put in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this : that he never had any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man who makes a charge without knowing it to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood ; and, lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a falsehood ; but he would make no personal application of the charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the " kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman," but because of his own personal self-respect ! I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken through the " self-respect," and has got to saying the thing oiU, The Judge nods to me that it is so. It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it was not filed till after default was taken, and demur to it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decision was made, does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it ? I am not dis- posed to stand upon my legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial as being like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, informa- tion, or belief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take his answer ,as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it ; and if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the fact ? It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them. Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as much as those who knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind that in what I have read to you, I do not say that I know such a conspiracy to exist To that I reply, / believe it. If the Judge says that I do 7iot believe it, then Ae says what he does not know, and falls within his own rule, that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to l)e true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call your attention to a little discus- sion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back, with all the kindness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have brought for- ward anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evi- dence, is it not rather for him to show, by a comparison of the evidence, that I have reasoned falsely, than to call the '' kind, amiable, intelligent gentle- man " a liar? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill, which Jydge Douglas has quoted : " It being the true intent and meaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it 13 98 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Thereupon Jiidge JDpuglas and others began to argue in favor of."JPopular Sovereignty," — the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. ^" But," 'said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to ; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the Territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as 9. fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down. I now think that those men who voted it down had a reai reason for doing so. They know what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pro- nounced, holding that "under the Constitution," the people cannot exclude slavery, — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, " amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, — a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the amend- ment. And now, I say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the Judge much niore to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down, than, swelling himself up, to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. Again : there is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill this clause : " It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State" I have always been puzzled to know what business the word "State" had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was not about States, and was not making provisions for States. What was it placed there for ? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in view of something which was to come in due time, we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say again, if there is any different reason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language : " I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before, for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge." I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I con- fess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there was a ma jl in America whose hcait was so " corrupt " as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the " men in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 America " who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this ; and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand he says : — '' In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington * Union ' has been so extraordinary, for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still con- tinues to read me out, using such terms as Hraitor,' 'renegade,' 'deserter/ and other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Demociucy against the Washington ' Union,' or any other newspapers. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for them- selves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington ' Union ' has a personal grievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer, I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude ? " This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington " Union," as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly : — " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington 'Union' editorially, and apparently aufAortito^iv^y / and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especiallj declar- ing it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage of the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. "Remember that this article was published in the 'Union' on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the ' Union ' to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — " * Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone ' — " And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the * Union.' What is it } " 'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' <* Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. •»»****»*"»^-i^- / 100 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN " ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington * Union * of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested iu this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds : — "When I saw that article in the * Union ' of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sov- ereignty of the States of this" Union." J ., / '^ «' » ^ • - ' ,?.-/» •■^ I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very coiTupt heart to make ? It was a pur- pose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from entering it with their " property /' so called, and making it a Slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer ; but when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom does he make that charge against ? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely ? No ; he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of that Constitution are brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that " fatal blow being struck." He did not call it a " conspiracy." In his language, it is a " fatal blow being struck." And if the words carry the meaning better when changed from a " conspiracy " into a " fatal blow being struck," I will change my expression, and call it " fatal blow being struck." We see the charge made not merely against the editor of the " Union," but all the framers of the Lecompton Con- stitution ; and not only so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority ? Is there any question but he means it was by the authority of the President and his Cabinet, — the Administration ? Is there any sort of question but he means to make that charge ? Then there are the editors of the " Union," the framers of the Lecompton Constitu- tion, the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and all the supporters of the Lecompton Constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this " fatal blow being struck." I commend to Judge Douglas's consideration the question of how corrupt a man's heart must he to make such a charge ! Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the little time I have left, to which to call your attention ; and as I shall come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Although on these questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another hejid and discuss it properly without running over my time. I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing •«.«. .<^ ^«B»*^« AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly all over the country, — 1 ask your attention to them. In the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national ? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery ? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under the Constitution neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day to that end. In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public senti- ment is everything. With public sentiment, notliing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything, when they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party, — a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a Territory from excluding slavery, and he does so, not because he says it is right in itself, — he does not give any opinion on that, — but because it has been decided hy the court ; and being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law, not that he judges at all of it". - -•-~<'^- -^ ..—■■■ ».. >■■ I ^»i I |»«l.»^.1»|»»—^lH.#—PM«.W|W»fc» --■»-•■- — »--—■--■ - .-.---,— ... -■J.H., .ann V« I I II AND ST£PU£N A. DOUGLAa 105 A voice : How about the conspiracy ? Mr. Douglas : Never mind, 1 will come to that soon enough. But the platform which I have read to you not only lays down these principles, but it adds: — *' Resolved, That, in furtherance of these principles, we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the General or State Government, who is not positively and fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance and ties." The Black Bepublican party stands pledged that they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform ; but he cannot devise his answer, he has not made up his mind whether he will or not. He talked about everything else he could think of to occupy his hour and a half, and when he could not think of anything more to say, without an excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he sat down long before his time was out In relation to Mr. Lincoln's chai*ge of conspiracy against me, I have a word to say. In his speech to-day he quotes a playful part of his speech at Spring- field, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, and Boger, and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take exception to this figure of his. He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in throwing his arguments together, and I will not object ; but I did take objection to his second Springfield speech, in which he stated that he intended his first speech as a charge of corruption or conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, Pi-esident Pierce, President Buclianan, and myself. That gave the offensive character to the charge. He then said that when he made it he did not know whether it was true or not ; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of conspiracy against me, thus charging me with moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, I did say that, inasmuch as he repeated the charge simply because I had not denied it, I would deprive him of the opportunity of ever repeating it again, by declaring that it was, in all its bearings, an infamous lie. He says he will repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense about Stephen, and Fmnklin, and Boger, and Bob, and James. He studied that out, prepared that one sentence with the greatest care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield speech ; and now he carries that speech around, and reads that sentence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded because I will not go into that beautiful figure of his about the building of a house. All I have to say is, that I am not green enough to let him make a charge which he acknowledges he does not know to be true, and then take up my time in answering it, when I know it to be false, and nobody else knows it to be true. I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. When he, or any other man, brings one against me, instead of disproving it, I will say that it is a lie, and let him prove it if he can. I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois, I have served you with all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my public action, my votes, and my conduct ; but when he dares to attack my moral integrity by a charge of conspiracy between myself. Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of the United States, I will repel it 14 106 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for integrity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to arraign President Buchanan, President Pierce, and nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not 'one of whom would be complimented by being put on an equality with him. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting himself up before thousands of people, and pretending that his ipse dixit, without proof, without fact, and without truth, is enough to bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men. Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring ; I must pass on. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment to the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill already conferred aU the power which Congress had, by giving the people the whole power over the subject Chase ofiFered a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey the idea that they cotdd prohibit by not introducing that institution. General Cass asked him to modify his amendment so as to provide that the people might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused to so modify his proviso, and then General Cass and all the rest of us voted it down. Those facts appear on the journals and debates of Congress, where Mr. Lincoln found the charge ; and if he held told the whole truth, there would have been no necessity for me to occupy your time in explaining the matter. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word " State," as well as " Territory,** was put into the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. It was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been adducing. That first, not only the people of the Territories should do as they pleased, but that when they come to be admitted as States, they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the people determined. I meant to knock in the head this Aboli- tion doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall be no more Slave States, even if the people want them. And it does not do for him to say, or for any other Black Bepublican to say, that there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no more Slave States, and that nobody wants to interfere with the right of the people to do as they please. What was the origin of the Missouri diflBculty and the Missouri Compromise ? The people of Missouri formed a Constitu- tion as a Slave State, and asked admission into the Union ; but the Free-soil party of the North, being in a majority, refused to admit her because she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence this first slavery agitation arose upon a State, and not upon a Territory ; and yet Mr. Lincoln does not know why the word " State " was placed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The whole Aboli- tion agitation arose on that doctrine of prohibiting a State from coming in with slavery or not, as it pleased, and that same doctrine is here in this Bepub- lican platform of 1854 ; it has never been repealed ; and every Black Eepubli- lican stands pledged by that platform never to vote for any man who is not in favor of it Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know that there is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing a State from coming in as it pleases, not- withstanding. The Springfield platform says that they, the Bepublican party, will not allow a State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. Now you see that upon these very points I am as far from bringing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I ever was before. He does not want to avow his principles. I do want to avow mine, as clear as sunlight in midday. Democ- racy is founded upon the eternal principle of right. The plainer these princi- ples are avowed before the people, the stronger will be the support which they will receive. I only wish I had the power to make them so clear that they AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 107 would shine in the heavens for every man, woman, and child to read The first of those principles that I would proclaim would be in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uniformity between the different States, and I would declare instead the sovereign right of each State to decide the slavery question as well as all other domestic questions for themselves, without interference from any other State or power whatsoever. When that principle is recognized, you will have peace and harmony and fraternal feeling between all the States of this Union ; until you do recognize that doctrine, there will be sectional warfare agitating and distracting the country. What does Mr. Lincoln propose ? He says that the Union cannot exist divided into Free and Slave States. If it cannot endure thus divided, then he must strive to make them all free or all slave, which will inevitably bring about a dissolution of the Union. Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, and I am obliged to stop. SECOND JOINT DEBATE, AT PREEPORT, August 27, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I pro- pose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope in that half-hour's speech something of his own open- ing speech. In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories, on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not ; and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him. I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Bepublican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge*s interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago " Times," and answer them strvoitim. In order 108 DEBATES BETWEEN ABBAHAM LINCOLN that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these interrogatories is in these words : — Question 1. — "I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law ? ** Answer. — I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Q. 2. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them ? " A, I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. Q, 3. " I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new Stat« into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make ? '" A. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. Q. 4. " I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ? '* A, I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia. Q, 5. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibi- tion of the slave-trade between the difiTerent States ? " A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States. Q. 6. " I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of the Mis- souri Compromise line ? " A, I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the rigJU and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Territories. C. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein ? " A, I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory ; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves. Now, my friends, it will be perceived, upon an examination of these ques- tions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other. The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly, that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them. As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave law, I have never hesi- tated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Consti- tution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 109 pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union ; but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up, I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions : First, that the abolition should be gradual ; second., that it should be on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in the District; and third, that compensation should be ma.de to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, '* sweep from our capital that foul blot upon our nation." In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I had sufficient time to bring myself to a con- clusion upon that subject ; but I have not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the different States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that power, unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in all the Territories of the United States, is full and explicit within itself, and can- not be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of ilUustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer which I have placed in writing. Now in all this the Judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose 110 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN he had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place ; that I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I am saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience. I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new instalment when I get them ready. I will bring them forward now, only reaching to number four. The first one is : — Question 1. — If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjection- able in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants accord- ing to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them ? Q, 2. Can the people of a United States Territor}', in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ? Q, 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action ? Q, 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ? As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbull and myself had participated in adopting, in the first Eepublican State Conven- tion, held at Springfield in October, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Eepublican party, were responsible for the doctrines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, and I understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority for propounding those questions to me. Now, I say here to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories because of their springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. I answered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor never did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on that occa- sion, I assured him that I never had anything to do with them. I repeat here to-day that I never in any possible form had anything to do with that set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed in any convention held in Springfield. It turns out that they were never passed at any convention or any public meeting that I had any part in. I believe it turns out, in addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of 1854, any convention holding a session in Springfield, calling itself a Eepublican State Convention ; yet it is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men call- ing themselves a convention, at Springfield, that did pass some resolutions. But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that convention, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolutions, I really did not know but they had been the resolutions passed then and there. I did not question that they were the resolutions adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose that Judge Douglas could say what K*. . AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill he did upon this subject without knowing that it was true. I contented my- self, on that occasion, with denying, as I truly could, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at Springfield. Now, it turns out that he had got hold of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in Kane County. I wish to say here, that I don't. conceive that in any fair and just mind this discovery relieves me at alL I had just as much to do with the convention in Kane County as that at Springfield. I am just as much responsible for the resolutions at Kane County as those at Springfield, — the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case; no more than there would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. I allude to this extraordinary matter in this canvass for some fui-ther purpose than anything yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his statement upon that occasion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as being truCy in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. When the whole matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — that he is a distinguished Senator of the United States; that he has served nearly twelve years as such ; that his character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the United States, but that his name has become of world-wide renown, — it is most extraordinary tliat he should so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. I can only account for his having done so upon the supposition that that evil genius which has attended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice, — I say I can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at last made up its mind to forsake him. And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the Judge's conduct in this canvass — made more extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any- tliing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything that I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity. I have been in the habit of charging as a matter of belief on my part that, in the introduction of the Nebraska bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. I have arranged from time to time the evidence which establishes and proves the truth of this charge. I recurred to this charge at Ottawa. I shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great length ; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas, in his reply of half an hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, I propose noticing a few of them. The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I very distinctly made that charge, he thought for a good while I was in fun ! that I was play- ful ; that I was not sincere about it ; and that he only grew angiy and some- what excited when he found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnestness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood as far as I implicated his moral character in that transaction. Well, I did not know, till he presented that view, that I had implicated his moral character. He is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into a position I never thought of occupying, of very cosily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is " conscientious " in saying so. 112 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN He should remember that I did not know but what he was altogether " con- scientious " in that matter. I can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course or argu- ments that is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing ; and so I hope he will understand that I do not at all question but that in all this matter he is entirely "conscientious." But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this case, begin- ning at the beginning. When the Nebraska bill was introduced, or a short time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was provided that it must be considered " the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." I have called his attention to the fact that when he and some others began arguing that they were giving an increased degree of liberty to the people in the Ter- ritories over and above what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question was i*aised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to the people ; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law — if the amendment were adopted — expressly declare that the people of the Territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit? I have asked atten- tion also to the fact that Judge Douglas and those who acted with him voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly the thing they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have called attention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the Supreme Court has been made, in which it has been declared that a Territorial Legislature has no con- stitutional right to exclude slavery. And I have argued and said that for men wlio did intend that the people of the Territory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely and unconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amend- ment is wholly inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contem- plation that such a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligi- ble. It would keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was made. Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expec- tation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court — all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party — to decide one way, when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men expect- ing such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I tell Judge Douglas that it looks to me as though here was the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tell him that, as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason dififerent from this, he knows what that reason was, and can tell ics what it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did make his answer ; and what do you think it was ? He says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about that amendment of Chase's, no explanation would have been necessary on his part, — or words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am quite unconscious of having suppressed anything material to the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 113 case, and I am very frank to admit if there is any sound reason other than that which ai)peared to ine material, it is quite fair for him to present it. What reason does ho propose ? That wlien Chase came forward with his amendment expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery from the limits of every Territory, General Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to his amendment that the people should have the power to introdtice or exclude, they would let it go. This is substantially all of his reply. And because Chase would not do that, they voted his amendment down. Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examination, that General Cass took some part in the little running debate upon that amendment, and then ran away and did not vote on it at all. Is not that the fact ? So confident, as I think, was General Cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the whole thing. This is an inference I draw from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer ? [Cries of " Yes," " Yes," and " No," " No."] There is some little difference of opinion here. But I ask attention to a few more views bearing on the question of whether it amounts to a satisfactory answer. The men who were determined that that amendment should not get into the bill and spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One of these ways — one of these excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his proposed amendment a provision that the people might introdtice slavery if they wanted to. They very well knew Chase would do no such thing, that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle of his insisting that freedom was better than slavery, — a man who would not consent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, by which he was made to recognize slavery on the one hand, and liberty on the other, as precisely equal ; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well knew^they insisted on that which he would not for a moment think of doing, and that they were only bluffing him. I believe (I have not, since he made his answer, had a chance to examine the journals or " Congressional Globe " and therefore speak from memory) — I believe the state of the bill at that time, according to par- liamentary rules, was such that no member could propose an additional amend- ment to Chase's amendment. I rather think this is the truth, — the Judge shakes his head. Very well. I would like to know, then, if they wanted Chafe's amendment fixed over, why somebody else could not have offered to do it t If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer the Amendment ? Why did they stand there taunting and quibbling at Chase ? Why did they not put it in themselves ? But to put it on the other ground : suppose that there was such an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amendment to an amend- ment ; until one is disposed of by parliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. Then all these gentlemen had to do was to vote Chase's on, and then, in the amended form in which the whole stood, add their own amendment to it, if they wanted to put it in that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noes show that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against ten who voted in favor of it. The thirty- six held entire sway and control. They could in some form or other have put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. If there was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, they could pass that, and then. Chase's amendment being merged, put it in the shape they wanted. They did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble with Chase to get him to add what they knew he would not add, and because he would not, they stand upon that flimsy pretext for voting down 15 114 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN what they argued was the meaning and intent of their own bill. They left room thereby for tliis Dred Scott decision, which goes very far to make slavery national throughout the United States. I pass one or two points I have, because my time will very soon expire ; but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln, — an insignificant individual like Liucoln, — upon his ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large number of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want to say that, in the first place, I have made no charge of this sort upon my ipse diait. I have only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to the understanding of others, saying what I think it proves, but giving you the means of judging whether it proves it or not This is precisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at alL On this occasion, I wish to recall his attention to a piece of evidence which I brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had made substantially the same charge against substantially the same persons, excluding his dear self from the category. I ask him to give some attention to the evidence which I brought forward that he himself had dis- covered a " fatal blow being struck " against the right of the people to exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the Washington " Union," published " by authority." I ask by whose authority ? He discovers a similar or identical provision in the Lecompton Constitution. Made by whom ? The framers of that Constitu- tion. Advocated by whom ? By all the members of the party in the nation, who advocated the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the Lecomp- ton Constitution. I have asked his attention to the evidence that he arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the facts which he brought fon^'ard in support of that charge, — being identical with the one which he thinks so villanous in me. He pointed it, not at a newspaper editor merely, but at the President and his Cabinet and the members of Congress advocating the Lecompton Constitution and those framing that instrument. I must again be permitted to remind him that although my ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my attention to the enormity of my making a like charge against him. Go on. Judge Douglas. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : The silence with which you have listened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is creditable to this vast audience, composed of men of various political parties. Nothing is more honorable to any large mass of people assembled for the purpose of a fair discussion than that kind and respectful attention that is yielded, not only to your political friends, but to those who are opposed to you in politics. I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln to the conclusion that he had better define his position on certain political questions to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no disposition, no inclina- tion, to answer them. I did not present idle questions for him to answer, merely for my gratification. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing that they constituted the platform of the party whose nominee he is AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 for the Senate. I did not presume that I had the right to catechise him as I saw proper, unless I showed that his party, or a majority of it, stood upon the platform and were in favor of the propositions upon which my questions were based. I desired simply to know, inasmuch as lie had been nominated as the first, last, and only choice of his party, whether he concurred in the platform which that party had adopted for its government. In a few moments I will proceed to review the aiiswers which he has given to these interrogatories ; but, in order to relieve his anxiety, I will first respond to these which he has presented to me. Mark you, he has not presented interrogatories which have ever received the sanction of the party with which I am acting, and hence he has no other foundation for them than his own curiosity. First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas shall form a constitution by means entirely proper and unobjectionable, and ask admission into the Union as a State, before they have the requisite population for a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission. Well, now, I regret exceed- ingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that wo might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the begin- ning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a Free State, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a State, free or slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the field, fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me whether he is fighting Trum- bull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that as she has population enough to constitute a Slave State, she has. people enough for a Free State. I will not make Kansas an exceptional case to the other States of the Union. I hold it te be a sound rule, of universal application, to require a Territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Congress before it is admitted as a State into the Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it dur- ing the last session, in a bill providing that no Territory of the United States should form a constitution and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas or any other Territory should be admitted until it had the requisite population. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Either Kansas must come in as a Free State, with whatever population she may have., or the rule must be applied to all the other Temtories alike. I there- fore answer at once, that, it having been decided that Kansas has people enou.s;^h for a Slave Stote, I hold that she has enough for a Free State. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory, — whether or not he will vote to admit Kaufjas before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before that Territory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon, commits him against Kansas, even if she should apply for admission as a Free State. If there is any sincerity, any trutl^, in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against the admission of Ojregon because she had not 93,420 people, althouglj her population was largeh than that of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr. 116 D££AT£S BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Lincoln to answer this question. I would like })im to take bis own medicine. If he dififers with Mr. Tnimbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State con- stitution ? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature ; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bilL I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answ^er satisfactory on that point. In this connection, I will notice the charge which he has introduced in rela- tion to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems that it still haunts his ima- gination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Con- gress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about par- liamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. The Nebraska bill provided that the legislative power and authority of the said Territory should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act and the Constitution of the United States. It did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution, to the Territorial legislature, with no excep- tion or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. The language of that bill which I have quoted gave the full power and the full authority over the sub- ject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to intix>duce it or exclude it, no far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. What more could Mr. Chase give by his amendment ? Nothing. He ofifered his amendment for the identical purpose for which Mr. Lincoln is using it, — to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. His amendment was to this effect It provided that the legislature should have the power to exclude slavery ; and General Cass suggested, " Why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ? " The answer was. They have the power already in the bill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition, and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. Ho expected that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it ; and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power which the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more ? Could Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country ? We gave all a full grant, with no exception in regard to slav- ery one way or the other. We left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I have argued it before, all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same prin- ciples. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Egypt. The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it ? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. [ " A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a school- boy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court He knows that there never was but one man in America, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pre- tended such a thing. It is true that the Washington " Union," in an article pub- lished on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on tlie floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pre- tends was against the President The " Union " had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the Free States, and that any provision in the Constitution or laws of the Free States to the contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and 1 was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Ilepublican side of the Senate, were silent. They left it to me to denounce it And what was the reply made to me on that occasion ? Mr. Tooml>s, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it ; that there was not one man, woman, or child south of tlie Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not I'epudiate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this ques- tion. He might as well ask me. Suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States, by supposing that they would violate the Constitution of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feelings so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the Union on the Slavery questions ? This question is very ingeniously and cun- ningly put. The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly that under no circum- stances shall we»acquire any more territory, unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of that proposition. 118 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Are you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more ter- ritory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in it ? That he does not like to answer. When I ask hira whether he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, and without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the question of slavery ; and when w^e have acquired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed that we had enough when our territory extended to the Mississippi River ; but a few years' growth and expansion satisfied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana ter- ritory, from the West branch of the Mississippi to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We have enough now for the present ; but this is a young and a growing nation. It swarms as often as a hive of bees ; and as new swarms are turned out each year, there must be hives in which they can gather and make their honey. In less than fifteen years, if tlie same progress that has distinguished this country for the last fifteen years continues, every foot of vacant land between this and the Pacific Ocean, owned by the United States, will be occupied. Will you not continue to increase at the end of fifteen years as well as now ? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is tlie law of this nation's existence. You cannot limit this great Republic by mere boundary lines, say- ing, " Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." Any one of you gentlemen might as well say to a son twelve years old that he is big enough, and must not grow any larger ; and in order to prevent his growth, put a hoop around him to keep him to his present size. What would be the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or the child must die. So it would be with this great nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this country that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle ; and just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it ; and when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question. I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself answered on his four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. [" Good, good."] You Black Republicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all good men. I have reason to recollect that some people in this country think that Fred Douglass is a very good man. The last time I came here to make a speech, while talking from the stand to you, people of Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — and a magnificent one it was — drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd ; a beautiful young lady was sit- ting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in. your own town. [" What of it ? "] All I have to say of it is this, that if you. Black Republi- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 cans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives . and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the ' team, you have perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass's . kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now travelling in this part of the State, making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. [" What have you to say against it ? "] All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to enter- tain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interrogatories con- tained in my speech at Ottawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the fact that I quoted a plat- form as having been adopted by the Black Republican party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his ecstasies over the mistake I made in stating the place where it was done. He thinks that that platform was not adopted on the right " spot." When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln to ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that creed, — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugi- tive Slave law, a refusal to admit any more Slave States into the Union, even if the people want them, a determination to apply the Wilmot Proviso, not only to all the territory we now have, but all that we may hereafter acquire, — he refused to answer ; and his followei*s say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon which I based my interrogatories were not adopted at the " right spot'* Lincoln and his political friends ai*e great on "spots.*' In Congi^ess, as a representative of this State, he declared the Mexican war to be unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his own country to be right in the contest, because he said that American blood was not shed on American soil in the " right spot.*' And now he cannot answer the questions I put to him at Ottawa because the resolutions I read were not adopted at the " right spot** It may be possible that I was led into an error as to the spot on which the resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am not, in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of the Republican party when that party was first organized. I will state to you the evidence I had, and upon which I relied for my statement that the resolu- tions in question were adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854. Although I was aware that such resolutions had been passed in this district, and nearly all the Northern Congressional Districts and County Conventions, I had not noticed whether or not they had been adopted by any State Conven- tion. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress between Major Thomas L. Harris, of the Springfield District, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet District, on political matters connected with our State, in the course of which. Major Harris quoted those resolutions as having been passed by the first Republican State Conven- tion that ever assembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was remark- able for his accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sincere man, and I also noticed that Norton did not question the accuracy of this statement. I therefore took it for granted that it was so ; and the other day when I con- cluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the "State Register," at Springfield, calling his attention to them, telling him that I had been informed that Major Harris was lying sick at Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him and ascertain all the facts con- cerning the resolutions, the time and the place where they were adopted. In reply, Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his paper, which I have here. The 120 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN first is a copy of the " State Eegister," published at Springfield, Mr. liDColn's own town, on the 16th of October, 1854, only eleven days after the adjourn- ment of the Convention, from which I desire to read the following : — ** During the lato discusflions in this city, Lincoln made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the whites and blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion, which he several times repeated, that the white man had no right to pass laws for the government of the black man without the nigger*s consent. This speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded by all the Abolitionists assembleii in Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking, Mr. Codding arose, and requested all the delegates to the Black Eepublican Convention to withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so ; and after long deliberation, they laid down the fol- lowing Abolition platform as the platform on which they stood. We call the parti- cular attention of all our readers to it." Then follows the identical platform, word for word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after the Convention was held, and it has remained on record up to this day never contradicted. When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and questioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he said that his name was on the committee that reported them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he served, because he was, or thought he was, in Tazewell County at the time the Convention was in ses- sion. He did not deny that the resolutions were passed by the Springfield Convention. He did not know better, and evidently thought that they were ; but afterward his friends declared that they had discovered that they varied in some respects from the resolutions passed by that Convention. I have shown you that I had good evidence for believing that the resolutions had been passed at Springfield. Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better ; but not a word is said about his ignorance on the subject, whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am accused of forgery. Now, I will show you that if I have made a mistake as to the place where these resolutions were adopted, — and when I get down to Springfield I will investigate the matter, and see whether or not I have, — that the principles they enunciate were adopted as the Black Eepublican platform ["white, white"], in the various counties and Congressional Districts throughout the north end of the State in 1854. This platform was adopted in nearly every county that gave a Black Bepublican majority for the Legislature in that year, and 'here is a man [pointing to Mr. Denio, who sat on the stand near Deacon Bross] who knows as well as any living man that it was the creed of the Black Bepublican party at that time. I would be willing to call Denio as a witness, or any other honest man belonging to that party. I will now read the resolutions adopted at the Rockford Convention on the 30th of August, 1854, which nominated Washburne for Congress. You elected him on the following platform : — " Resolved, That the continued and increasing aggressions of slavery in our coun- try are destructive of the best rights of a free people, and that such aggressions cannot be successfully resisted without the united political action of all good men. ** Resolvedj That the citizens of the United States bold in their hands peaceful, constitutional, and efficient remedy against the encroachments of the slave power, — the ballot-box ; and if that remeily is boldly and wisely applied, the principles of liberty and eternal justice will be established. '* Resolved, That wo accept this issue forced upon us by the slave power, and, in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 defence of freedom, will co-operate and be known as Eepublicans, pledged to the accomplishment of the following purposes : — " To bring the Administration of the Government back to the control of first principles ; to restore Kansas and Nebraska to the position of Free Territories ; to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the Union ; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General Govern- ment has exclusive jurisdiction ; and to resist the acquisition of any more Territories^ unless the introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. *^ Besolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office under the General or State Government who is not positively committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and con- duct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and shall abjure all party allegiance and ties. *' Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all former politicsd parties what- ever, in favor of the object expressed in the above resolutions, to unite with us in carrying them into effect" Well, you think that is a very good platfonn, do you not ? If you do, if you approve it now, and think it is all right, you will not join with those men who say that I libel you by calling these your principles, will you ? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains ; Mr. Lincoln charges that I did you and him injustice by saying that this was the platform of your party. I am told that Wash- bume made a speech in Galena last night, in which he abused me awfully for bringing to light this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. He thought that you had forgotten it, as he and Mr. Lincoln desires to. He did not deny but that you had adopted it, and that he had subscribed to and was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair to call it up and remind the people that it was their platform. But I am glad to find that you are more honest in your Abolitionism than your leaders, by avowing that it is your platform, and right in your opinion. In the adoption of that platform, you not only declared that you would resist the admission of any more Slave States, and work for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, but you pledged yourselves not to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who was not committed to these principles. You were thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were adopted in your county Convention here, and now with your admissions that they are your platform and embody your sentiments now as they did then, what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate for the United States Senate, who is attempting to dodge the responsibility of this platform, because it was not adopted in the right spot. I thought that it was adopted in Springfield ; but it turns out it was not, that it was adopted at Rockford, and in the various counties which comprise this Congressional District. When I get into the next district, I will show that the same platform was adopted there, and so on through the State, until I nail the responsibility of it upon the back of the Black Repub- lican party throughout the State. A voice : Could n't you modify, and call it brown ? Mr. Douglas : Not a hit I thought that you were becoming a little brown when your members in Congress voted for the Crittenden-Montgomery bill ; but since you have backed out from that position and gone back to Abolition- ism you are black, and not brown. Gentlemen, I have shown you what your platform was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties 16 122 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN where the Black Republican party had a majority in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the action of your representatives in the Legislature when they assembled together at Springfield. In the firat place, you must remember that this was the organization of a new party. It is so declared in the resolutions themselves, which say that you are going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new party Republican. The old Whig party was to have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic party was to be anni- hilated and blotted out of existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black Republican party was to be organized on this Abolition platform. •You know who the chief leaders were in breaking up and destroying these two gre^t parties. Lincoln on the one hand, and Trumbull on the other, being disap- pointed politicians, and having retired or been driven to obscurity by an outraged constituency because of their political sins, formed a scheme to Abo- litionize the two parties, and lead the old line Wliigs and old line Democrats captive, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy were here to christen them whenever they were brought in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old line Whig party. Clay was dead ; and although the sod was not yet green on his grave, this man under- took to bring into disrepute those great Compromise measures of 1850, with which Clay and Webster were identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig party and the Democratic party had stood on a common platform so far as this slavery question was concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this slavery question, and the true mode of preserving the peace and harmony of the Union. The Compromise measures of 1850 were introduced by Clay, were defended by Webster, and supported by Cass, and were approved by Fillmore, and sanctioned by the National men of both parties. They constituted a common plank upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 1852 the Whig party, in its last National Convention at Baltimore, indorsed and approved these measures of Clay, and so did the National Convention of the Democratic party held that same year. Thus the old line Whigs and the old line Democrats stood pledged to the great princi- ple of self-government, which guarantees to the people of each Territory the right to decide the slavery question for themselves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Webster, Mr. Lincoln, on the part of the Whigs, undertook to Abolitionize the Whig party, by dissolving it, transferring the members into the Abolition camp, and making them train under Giddings, Fred Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other Abolition leaders. Trumbull undertook to dissolve the Democratic party by taking old Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his efforts by many leading Whigs through- out the State, your member of Congress, Mr. Washburne, being one of the most active. Tmmbull was aided by many renegades from the Democratic party, among whom were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and others, with whom you are familiar. [Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, here interposed, and said that he had drawn the resolutions which Senator Douglas had read.] Mr. Douglas: Yes, and Turner says that he drew these resolutions. [ " Hurrah for Turner,'* " Hurrah for Douglas." ] That is right ; give Turner cheers for drawing the resolutions if you approve them. If he drew those resolutions, he will not deny that they are the creed of the Black Eepublican party. Mr. Turner : They are.our creed exactly. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 128 Mr. Douglas: And yet Lincoln denies that he stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the creed of the Black Republican party is the admission of no more Slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares that he would not like to be placed in a position where he would have to vote for them. All I have to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do not think there is much danger of his being placed in such a position. As Mr. Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such an embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote on the admission of any more Slave States, I propose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such necessity. When the bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull was completed for Aboli- tionizing the Whig and Democratic parties, they " spread " over the State, Lincoln still pretending to be an old line Whig, in order to " rope in " the Whigs, and Trumbull pretending to be as good a Democnit as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats over into the Abolition ranks. They played the part that " decoy ducks " play down on the Potomac Eiver. In that part of the country they make artificial ducks, and put them on the water in places where the wild ducks are to be found, for the purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part of the.se " decoy ducks," and deceived enougli old line Whigs and old line Democrats to elect a Black Republican Legislature. When that Legislature met, the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of the House the very man who is now boasting that he wrote the Abolition platform on which Lincoln will not stand. I want to know of Mr. Turner whether or not, when he was elected, he was a good embodiment of Republican principles ? Mr. Turner: 1 hope I was then, and am now. Mr. Douglas : He swears that he hopes he was then, and is now. He wrote that Black Republican platform, and is satisfied with it now. I admire and acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you know that what he says about these resolutions being the platform of the Black Republican party is true, and you also know that each one of these men who are shuffling and trying to deny it are only trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the purpose of deceiving them still more after the election. I propose to trace this thing a little further, in order that you can see wliat additional evidence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform upon the Black Republican party. When the Legislature assembled, there was a United States Senator to elect in the place of General Shields, and before they pix)ceeded to ballot, Lovejoy insisted on laying down certain principles by which to govern the party. It has been published to the world and satisfactorily proven that there was, at the time the alliance was made between Trumbull and Lincoln to Abolitionize the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln should take Shields's place in the United States Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon as they could conveniently get rid of me. When Lincoln was beaten for Shields's place, in a manner I will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and restive; his friends grumbled, and some of them came out and charged that the most infamous treachery had been practised against him ; that the bargain was that Lincoln was to have had Shields's place, and Trum- bull was to have waited for mine, but that Trumbull, having the control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, he prevented them from voting for Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few votes of an election until he succeeded in forcing the party to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well, Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the party were obliged to come forward, in advance, at the last State election, 124 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN and make a pledge that they would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lincoln could not be silenced in any other way. Now, there are a great many Black Eepublicans of you who do not know this thing was done. ["White, white," and great clamor.] I wish to remind your that while Mr. Lincoln was speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe is pinch- ing you. I am clinching Lincoln now, and you are scared to death for the result I have seen this thing before. I have seen men make appointments for joint discussions, and the moment their man has been heard, try to inter- rupt and prevent a fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tremendous applause.] My friends, do not cheer, for I need my whole time. The object of the opposition is to occupy my attention in order to prevent me from giving the whole evidence and nail- ing this double dealing on the Black Bepublican party. As I have before said, Lovejoy demanded a declaration of principles on the part of the Black Bepublicans of the Legislature before going into an election for United States Senator. He offered the following preamble and resolutions which I hold in my hand : << Whbrbas, Human slavery is a violation of the principles of natural and revealed rights ; and whereas the fathers of tlie Bevolution, fully imbued with the spirit of these principles, declared freedom to be the inalienable birthright of all men ; and whereas the preamble to the Constitution of the United States avers that that instru- ment was ordained to establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ; and whereas, in furtherance of the above principles, slavery was forever prohibited in the old Northwest Territory, and more recently in all that Ter- ritory lying west and north of the State of Missouri, by the act of the Federal Govern- ment ; and whereas the repeal of the prohibition last referred to was contrary to the wishes of the people of Illinois, a violation of an implied compact long deemed sacred by the citizens of the United States, and a wide departure from the uniform action of the General Government in relation to the extension of slavery ; therefore, *' Besolved, by the House of Representatives^ the Senate concurring therein^ That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested to introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid Territories, and also to extend a similar prohibition to all territory which now belongs to the United States, or which may hereafter come under their jurisdiction. " Besolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Eepresentatives requested, to vote against the admission of any State into the Union, the Constitu- tion of which does not prohibit slavery, whether the territory out of which such State may have been formed shall have been acquired by conquest, treaty, purchase, or from original territory of the United States. '' Besolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Bepresentatives requested, to introduce and vote for a bill to repeal an Act entitled ' an Act respect- ing fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters ; ' and, failing in that, for such a modi6cation of it as shall secure the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing service or labor." Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Lovejoy immediately preceding the election of Senator. They declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. Secondly, that it must be applied to all territory south of 36 deg. 30 min. Thirdly, that it must be applied to all the territory now owned by the United States ; and finally, that it must AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 125 be applied to all territory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. The next resolution declares that no more Slave Slaves shall be admitted into this Union under any circumstances whatever, no matter whether they are formed out of territory now owned by us or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next resolution demands the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, although its unconditional repeal would leave no provision for carrying out that clause of the Constitu- tion of the United States which guarantees the surrender of fugitives. If they could not get an unconditional repeal, they demanded that that law should be so modified as to make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I want to show you who voted for these resolutions. When the vote was taken on the first resolution it was decided in the affirmative, — yeas 41, nays 32. You will find that this is a strict party vote, between the Democrats on the one hand, and the Black Republicans on the other. [Cries of " White, white," and clamor.] I know your name, and always call things by their right name. The point I wish to call your attention to is this : that these resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 8th they went into an election for a United States Senator, and that day every man who voted for these resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. [" Give us their names.'*] I will read the names over to you if you want them, but I believe your object is to occupy my time. On the next resolution the vote stood — yeas 33, nays 40 ; and on the third resolution, — yeas 35, nays 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every man who voted for those resolutions, with but two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United States Senator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted for Lincoln were elected to the Legislature pledged to vote for no man for office under the State or Federal Government who was not committed to this Black Republican platform. They were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then represented you, and who says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did he commit himself to your platform before you cast your vote for him ? I could go through the whole list of names here, and show you that all the Black Republicans in the Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these resolutions. For instance, here are the names of Sargent and Little, of Jo Daviess and Carroll, Thomas J. Turner of Stephen- son, Lawrence of Boone and McHenry, Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle County, and Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member from your Congres- sional District voted for Mr. Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more Slave States, the pro- hibition of slavery in the Territories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Republican Representative from this Congressional District violated his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. I ask you which horn of the dilemma will you take ? Will you hold Lincoln up to the platform of his party, or will you accuse every Representative you had in the Legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his constituents ? There is no escape for you. Either 126 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincoln was committed to those propositions, or your members violated their faith. Take either horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no dodg- ing the question ; I want Lincoln's answer. He says he was not pledged to repeal the Fugitive Slave law, that he does not quite like to do it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, but thinks there ought to be some law ; he does not tell what it ought to be ; upon the whole, he is altogether undecided, and don't know what to think or do. That is the substance of his answer upon the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. I put the question to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part of the Black Eepublican platform which calls for the entire abrogation and repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. He answers. No ! that he does not indorse that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or what he will vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at alL Why cannot he speak out, and say what he is for, and what he will do ? In regard to there being no more Slave States, he is not pledged to that He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where he would have to vote one way or another upon that question. I pray you, do not put him in a position that would embarrass him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the Senate, he may be put in that position, and then which way will he vote ? A Voice : How will you vote ? Mr. Douglas : I will vote for the admission of just such a State as by the form of their constitution the people show they want : if they want slavery, they shall have it ; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited. They can form their institutions to please themselves, subject only to the Constitution ; and I, for one, stand ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Black Bepublican candidates talk out as plain as that when they are questioned ? I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I have the power to express myself in terms explicit enough to convey my ideas. Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nominated for the United States Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. He there lays down a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover the whole ground, ** la my opiniou it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself canuot stand.* I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the fur- ther spread of it, and place it whore the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South." There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, with Free and Slave States. He says they must all become one thing, or all the other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else the Union cannot continue to exist ; it being his opin- ion that to admit any more Slave States, to continue to divide the Union into Free and Slave States, will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. Lincoln whether he will vote for the admission of another Slave State. He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the States are all free or all slave ; he tells you that he is opposed to making them all slave, and hence he is for making them all free, in order that the Union may exist ; and yet he AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 • will not say that he will not vote against another Slave State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he vot^s for it. I ask you if that is fair deal- ing? The tnie intent and inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speecli is, that he is opposed to the admission of any more Slave States under any circumstance. If he is so opposed, why not say so ? If he believes this Union cannot endure divided into Free and Slave States, that they must all become free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an hon- est man to vote against any more Slave States. If he believes it, he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty, in order to save the Union, to do a particular act, and I will do it if the Constitution does not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution of the Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of conduct that will give just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the per- petuity of this Union. The down-trodden and oppressed people who are suffering under European despotism all look with hope and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting place and permanent home of freedom and self-government Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot continue to endure with Slave States in it, and yet he wiU not tell you distinctly whether he will vote for or against the admission of any more Slave States, but says he would not like to be put to the test. I do not think he will be put to the test. I do not think that the people of Illinois desire a man to represent them who would not like to be put to the test on the performance of a high constitutional duty. I will retire in shame from the Senate of the United States when I am not willing to be put to the test in the performance of my duty. I have been put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have defended the great principles of self-government here among you when Northern senti- ment ran in a torrent against me, and I have defended that same great prin- ciple when Southern sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. I was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew I was right ; I knew my principles were sound ; I knew that the people would see in the end that I had done right, and I knew that the God of heaven would smile upon me if I was faithful in the performance of my duty. Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against the Supreme Court of the United States, and two Presidents of the United States, and attempts to bolster it up by saying that I did the same against the Washington " Union." Suppose I did make that charge of corruption against the Washington *• Union," when it was true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me and others ? That is the question I would put. He says that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and before it was passed, there was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, President Pierce, Pi-esident Buchanan, and myself, by that bill and the decision of the court to break down the barrier and establish slavery all over the Union. Does he not know that that chai-ge is historically false as against President Buchanan ? He knows that Mr. Buchanan was at that time in England, representing this country with distinguished ability at the Court of St. James, that he was there for a long time before, and did not return for a year or more after. He knows that to be true, and that fact proves his charge to be false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then, again, I wish to call his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred Scott case was not before the Supreme Court at all ; it was not upon the docket of the Supreme Court ; it 128 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN had not been brought there ; and the Judges in all prol)ability knew nothing of it Thus the history of the country proves the charge to be false as against them. As to President Pierce, his high character as a man of integrity and honor is enough to vindicate him from such a charge ; and as to myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever and wherever made, and by whomsoever made. I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of mine, every measure I have introduced, report I have made, speech delivered, and criticise them ; but when he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy for the purpose of perverting the institutions of the coun- try, I brand it as it deserves. I say the history of the country proves it to be false, and that it could not have been possible at the time. But now he tries to protect himself in this chaise, because I made a charge against the Washington " Union." My speech in the Senate against the Washington " Union " was made because it advocated a revolutionary doctrine, by declar- ing that the Free States had not the right to prohibit slavery within their own limits. Because I made that charge against the Washington " Union," Mr. Lincoln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was : is Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan ? Is he so interested in the Federal Administration, and so bound to it, that he must jump to the rescue and defend it from every attack that I may make against it ? I understand the whole thing. The Washington " Union," under that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. Wendell was the printer of the last Black Bepublican House of Representa- tives ; he was a candidate before the present Democmtic House, but was ignominiously kicked out ; and then he took the money which he had made out of the public printing by means of the Black Bepublicans, bought the Washington " Union," and is now publishing it in the name of the Demo- cratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's election to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an attack upon Wendell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack upon him. This only proves what I have charged, — that there is an alliance between Lincoln and his supporters, and the Federal office-holders of this State, and Presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at home. Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue of the Washington "Union." In that speech which I delivered in answer to the Washington " Union," I made it distinctly against the " Union," and against the ** Union " alone. I did not choose to go beyond that. If I have occasion to attack the President's conduct, I will do it in language that will not be misunderstood. When I differed with the President, I spoke out so that you all heard me. That question passed away ; it resulted in the triumph of my principle, by allowing the people to do as they please ; and there is an end of the contro- versy. Whenever the great principle of self-government, — the right of the people to make their own Constitution, and come into the Union with slavery or without it, as they see proper, — shall again arise, you will find me stand- ing firm in defence of that principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he will, by the recommendation contained in his Message, that hereafter all State constitutions ought to be submitted to the people before the admission of the State into the Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to shoulder, in carrying it out. I know Mr. Lincoln's object : he wants to divide the Democratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get to the Senate. Mr. Douglas's time here expired, and he stopped on the moment r» AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 129 MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. My Friends : It will readily occur to you that I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be anything that he has said upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which I omit to com- ment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibility for me to go over his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-hour specially on them. The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the "vulgarity and blackguardism" in the audience, — that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to say that while / was speaking, / used no " vulgarity or blackguardism ** toward any Democrat. Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge's speech, — perhaps half of it, — which he has devoted to the various resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in the different counties in the different Congressional Districts, and in the Illinois Legislature, which he supposes are at variance with the positions I have assumed before you to-day. It is true that many of these resolutions are at variance with the positions I have here assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reasonably and rationally about it I happen to know, the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He may go and examine all the members who voted for me for United States Senator in 1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me ; and if he will find any of these persons who will tell him anything inconsistent with what I say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the race, and give him no more troubla The plain truth is this : At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the Bepublic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery, fiut in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. The people in the north end of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the central and southern portions of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your Conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State and fuitber south did not hold such Conventions and pass the same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment So that these meetings which the Judge has alluded to, and the resolutions he has read from, were local, and did not spread over the whole State. We at last met together in 1856, from all parts of the State, and we agreed upon a common platform. You, who held more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the measures which the opposite party were pushing foi*ward at that time. We met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical pur- poses. We agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all bound, a.s a party, to that platform. And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — in the case of my election — that I will do anything not signified by our Republican platform and my answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. 17 130 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes or pledges that I dare not speak out Cannot the Judge be satisfied ? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my election, that my goiug to Washington will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to those which I expressed when you voted for and elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly needless and groundless. Is the Judge really afraid of any such thing ? I 'U tell you what he is afraid of. He is afraid we *ll all pull together. This is what alarms him more than anything else. For my part, I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment in opposition to what appears to us a design to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive minor differences on questions which either belong to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull together in this struggle. What are your sentiments ? If it be true that on the ground which I occupy, — ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, though partly coinciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say to you in all candor, go for him, and not for me. I hope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in this contest. And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me. The Judge has agedn addressed himself to the Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine made at Springfield in June last. I have so often tried to answer what he is always saying on that melancholy theme that I almost turn with disgust from the discussion, — from the repetition of an answer to it I trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have read that speech. If you have, I may venture to leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether it contains any of those *' bugaboos " which frighten Judge Douglas. The Judge complains that I did not fully answer his questions. If I have the sense to comprehend and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense to see how it is to be done. He says I do not declare I would in any event vote for the admission of a Slave State into the Union. If I have been fairly reported, he will see that I did give an explicit answer to his interrogatories ; I did not merely say that I would dLslike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Territory from which slavery had been excluded should present herself with a State constitu- tion sanctioning slavery, — a most extraordinary thing, and wholly unlikely to happen, — I did not see how I could avoid voting for her admission. But he refuses to understand that I sedd so, and he wants this audience to understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so reported in the printed speech that he cannot help seeing it He says if I should vote for the admission of a Slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot permanently exist half slave and half free. I repeat that I do not believe this government can endure permanently half slave and half free ; yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admission of a single Slave State will permanently fix the character and establish this as a universal slave nation. The Judge is very happy indeed at working up these quibbles. Before leav- ing the subject of answering questions, I aver as my confident belief, when you come to see our speeches in print, that you will find every question which he has asked me more fairly and boldly and fully answered than he has answered those which I put to him. Is not that so ? The two speeches AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 may be placed side by side, and I will venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been more directly and circumstantially answered than mine. Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the Washington " Union," alone, of entertaining a purpose to rob the States of their power to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not make his charge against the editor of the " Union " alone. I will undertake to prove by the reconi liere that he made that charge against more and higher dignitaries than the editor of the Washington " Union." I am quite aware that he was shirking and dodging around the form in which he put it, but I can make it manifest that he levelled his '' fatal blow *' against more persons tlian this Washington editor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge ? Not at all. Am I not making the same charge myself ? I am trying to show that you. Judge Douglas, are a witness on my side. I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion, when he made that charge, he had an eye farther north than he was to-day. He was then fighting against people who called hifn a Black Ilepublican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got up and declared there was not a man in the United States, except the editor of the " Union," who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. And thereupon I understand that the Judge with- drew the chaise. Although he had taken extracts from the newspaper, and then from the Lecompton Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow," by which the States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John Phoenix, the California railroad surveyor, tells. He says they started out from the Plaza to the Mission of Dolores. They had two ways of determining distances. One was by a chain and pins taken over the ground. The other was by a *' go-it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a three-legged instrument, with which he computed a series of triangles between the points. At night he turned to the chain-man to ascertain what distance they had come, and found that by some mistake he had merely dragged the chain over the ground, with- out keeping any record. By the " go-it-ometer " he found he had made ten miles. Being sceptical about this, he asked a drayman who was passing how far it was to the Plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile ; and the surveyor put it down in his book, — just as Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calculations and computations, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as easily satisfied about its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statement of the distance to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who put forth all that matter which Douglas deemed a " fatal blow " at State sovereignty, was elected by the Democrats as public printer. Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's speech of March 22d, 1868, beginning about the middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of page 24, and you will find the evidence on which I say that he did not make his charge against the editor of the " Union " alone. I cannot stop to read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge Douglas said : — " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington * Union ' editorially, and ap)>arently auihorUativfly^ and every man who d 132 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government «it its original insti- tution is the protection of persons and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and that, therofore^ thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the Government and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. " Remember that this article was published in the ' Union ' on the 17th of Nov- ember, and on the 1 8th appeared the first article, giving the adhesion of the ' Union ' to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — " * Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The prob- lem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. AU serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone — ' '' And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the * Union.' What is it 1 '* * Artiolb 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' '' Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. ^' ^ But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.' ** It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washington ' Union ' of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. " When I saw that article in the * Union ' of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to pro- hibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." Here he says, " Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly, and apparently aiUhoritatively!* By whose authority, Judge Douglas ? Again, he says in another place, " It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spirit with this avihori- tative article." By whose avihority f Who do you mean to say authorized the publication of these articles ? He knows that the Washington " Union " is considered the organ of the Administration. / demand of Judge Douglas hy whose authority he meant to say those articles were published, if not by the authority of the President of the United States and his Cabinet ? I defy him to show whom he referred to, if not to these high functionaries in th6 Fed- eral Government More than this, he says the articles in that paper and the provisions of the Lecompton Constitution are " identical," and, being identical, he argues that the authors are co-operating and conspiring together. He does not use the word " conspiring," but what other construction can you put upon it ? He winds up with this : — " When I saw that article in the ' Union * of the 1 7th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to pro- hibit slavery within its limits, I saw that tliere was 9^ fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union." I ask bim if all this fuss was made over the editor of this newspaper. It would be a terribly "fatal blow " indeed which a single man could strike, when no President, no Cabinet officer, no member of Congress, was giving strength and efficiency to the moment. Out of respect to Judge Douglas's good sense I must believe he did n't manufacture his idea of the " fatal " char- acter of that blow out of such a misemble scapegrace as he represents that editor to ba But the Judge's eye is farther south now. Then, it was very peculiarly and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea of visiting the great *' Black Bepublican " party, and making it the tail of his new kite. Ho knows he was then expecting from day to day to turn Republican, and place himself at the head of our organization. He has found that these despised " Black Republicans " estimate him by a standard which lie has taught them none too well. Hence he is crawling back into his old camp, and you will find him eventually installed in full fellowship among those whom he was then battling, and with whom he now pretends to be at such fearful variance. [Loud applause, and cries of " Go on, go on."] I cannot, gentlemen ; my time has expired. THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO. September 15^ 1858. MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I appear before you to-day in pursuance of a previous notice, and have made airangements with Mr. Lincoln to divide time, and discuss with him the leading political topics that now agitate the country. Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political parties known as Whig and Democratic. These parties differed from each other on certain questions which were then deemed to be important to the best interests of the Republic. Whig and Democrats differed about a bank, the tariff, dis- tribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury. On those issues we went before the country and discussed the principles, objects, and measures of the two great parties. Each of the parties could proclaim its principles in Loui- siana as well as in Massachusetts, in Kentucky as well as in Illinois. Since that period, a great revolution has taken place in the formation of parties, by which they now seem to be divided by a geographical line, a large party in the North being arrayed under the Abolition or Eepublican banner, in hos- tility to the Southern States, Southern people, and Southern institutions. It becomes important for us to inquire how this transformation of parties has occurred, made from those of national principles to geographical factions. You remember that in 1850 — this country was agitated from its centre to its circumference about this slavery question — it became necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and the leaders of the great Democratic party to post- 184 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN pone, for the time being, their particular disputes, and unite first to save the Union before they should quarrel as to the mode in which it was to be gov- erned. During the Congress of 1849-50, Henry Clay was the leader of the Union men, supported by Cass and Webster, and the leadera of the Democracy and the leaders of the Whigs, in opposition to Northern Abolitionists or Southern Disunionists. That great contest of 1850 resulted in the establish- ment of the Compromise measures of that year, which measures rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory of this Union ought to be permitted to regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject to no other limitation than that which the Federal Constitution imposes. I now wish to ask you whether that principle was right or wrong which guaranteed to every State and every community the right to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. These measures were adopted, as I have previously said, by the joint action of the Union Whigs and Union Democrats in opposition to Northern Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1858, when the Whig party assembled, at Baltimore, in National Conven- tion for the last time, they adopted the principle of the Compromise Measures of 1850 as their rule of party action in the future. One month thereafter the Democmts assembled at the same place to nominate a candidate for the Presi- dency, and declared the same great principle as the rule of action by which the Democracy would be governed. The Presidential election of 1852 was fought on that basis. It is true that the Whigs claimed special merit for the adoption of those measures, because they asserted that their great Clay ori- ginated them, their god-like Webster defended them, and their Fillmore signed the bill making them the law of the land ; but, on the other hand, the Democrats claimed special credit for the Democracy, upon the ground that we gave twice as many votes in both Houses of Congress for the passage of these measures as the Whig party. Thus you see that in the Presidential election of 1852, the Whigs were pledged by their platform and their candidate to the principle of the Compro- mise Measures of 1850, and the Democracy were likewise pledged by our principles, our platform, and our candidate to the same line of policy, to pre- serve peace and quiet between the different sections of this Union. Since that period the Whig party has been transformed into a sectional party, under the name of the Republican party, whilst the Democratic party continues the same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men of Aboli- tion sentiments and principles, no matter whether they were old Abolitionists or had been Whigs or Democrats, rally under the sectional Republican banner, and consequently all National men, all Union-loving men, whether Whigs, Democrats, or by whatever name they have been known, ought to rally under the Stars and Stripes in defence of the Constitution as our fathers made it, and of the Union as it has existed under the Constitution. How has this departure from the faith of the Democracy and the faith of the Whig party been accomplished ? In 1854, certain restless, ambitious, and disappointed politicians throughout the land took advantage of the tem- porary excitement created by the Nebi-aska bill to try and dissolve the old Whig party and the old Democratic party, to Abolitionize their members, and lead them, bound hand and foot, captives into the Abolition camp. In the State of New York a convention was held by some of these men, and a plat- form adopted, every plank of which was as black as night, each one relating to the negro, and not one referring to the interests of the white man. That AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 135 example was followed throughout the Northern States, the effect being made to combine all the Free States in hostile array against the Slave States. The men who thus thought that they could build up a great sectional party, and through its organization control the political destinies of this countiy, based all their hopes on the single fact that the North was the stronger division of the nation, and hence, if the North could be combined against the South, a sure victory awaited their efforts. I am doing no more than justice to the truth of history when I say that in this State, Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull, on behalf of the Democrats, were tlie leaders who undertook to perform this grand scheme of Abolitionidng the two parties to which they belonged. They had a private arrangement as to what should be the political destiny of each of tlie contracting parties before they went into the operation. The aiTangement was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the old line Whigs with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig as ever, over to the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull was to run for Congress in the Belleville District, and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the old Democrats into the Abolition camp, and when, by the joint efforts of the Abolitionized Whigs, the Abolitionized Democrats, and the old line Abolition and Free-soil party of this State, they should secure a majority in the Legisla- ture. Lincoln was then to be made United States Senator in Shields's place, Trumbull remaining in Congress until I should be accommodating enough to die or i-esign, and give him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Trumbull were concerned, if it had been carried out in good faith, and friend Lincoln had attained to senatorial dignity according to the contract. They went into tlie contest in every part of the State, calling upon all disappointed politicians to join in the crusade against the Democracy, and appealed to the prevailing sentiments and prejudices in all the northern counties of the State. In three Congressional Districts in the * north end of the State they adopted, as the platform of this new party thus formed by Lincoln and Trumbull in connection with the Abolitionists, all of those principles which aimed at a warfare on the part of the North against the South. They declared in that platform tliat the Wilmot Proviso was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 30 min., and not only to all the ten'itory we then had, but all that we might hereafter acquire ; that hereafter no more Slave States should be admitted into this Union, even if the people of such State desired slavery ; that the Fugitive Slave law should be absolutely and unconditionally repealed ; that slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia ; that the slave- trade should be abolished between the different States ; and, in fact, every article in their creed related to this slavery question, and jwinted to a Northern geographical party in hostility to the Southern States of this Union. Such were their principles in Northern Illinois. A little further south they became bleached, and grew paler just in proportion as public sentiment mod- erated and changed in this direction. They were Ilepublicans or Abolitionists in the North, anti-Nebraska men down about Springfield, and in this neigh- borhood they contented themselves with talking about the inexj^diency of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In the extreme northern counties they brought out men to canvass the State whose con)plexion suited their political creed ; and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to be found there, following General Cass, and attempting to speak on behalf of Lincoln, Trum- bull, and Abolitionism, against that illustrious senator. Why, they brought Fred Douglass to Freeport, when I was addressing a meetiug thjai^uJll-ft-rar- 136 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN riage driven by the white owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and her daughter. When I got through canvassing the northern counties that year, and progressed as far south as Springfield, I was met and opposed in discussion by Lincoln, Lovejoy, Trumbull, and Sidney Breese, who were on one side. Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, had just been there, and Chase came about the time I left. [**Why didn't you shoot him ? "] I did take a running shot at them ; but as I was single-handed against the white, black, and mixed drove, I. had to use a shot-gun and fire into the crowd, instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. Trumbull had for his lieutenants, in aiding him to Abolitionize the Democracy, such men as John Wentwortli of Chicago, Governor Reynolds of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dougherty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would not go much further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis under the law. Now, these men, four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to break down the Democracy ; to-day they are again acting together for the same purpose ! They do not hoist the same fag, they do not own the same principles or profess the same faith, but conceal their union for the sake of policy. In the northern counties, you find that all the conventions are called in the name of the Black Bepubli- can party ; at Springfield, they dare not call a Republican Convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democmcy to unite ; and when they get down into Egypt, TiiimbuU issues notices calling upon the " Free Democracy " to assemble and hear him speak. I have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, which is in the following language : — A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Monday, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon. Lyraan Trumbull, Hon. John Baker and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for themselves. The Monroe Free Dehocbact. What is that name of ** Free Democrats " put forth for, unless to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the same party as that which raises the black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and makes war upon the Democratic party throughout the State ? When I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political effect, in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their object in changing their party organization and principles in different localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive some portion of the people until after the election. Why cannot a political party that is con- scious of the rectitude of its purposes and the soundness of its principles declare them everywhere alike ? I would disdain to hold any political prin- ciples that I could not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illinois, in Charleston as well as in Chicago, in New Orleans as well as in New York. So long as we live under a Constitution common to all the States, our political faith ought to be as broad, as liberal, and just as that Constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every portion of the Union. But it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary, for partisan effect, ~^9^ciian<3;§ ^their colors in different counties in order to catch the popular AND STEPHEN A, DOUGLAS. 187 breeze, and hope with these discordant materials combined together to secure a majority in the Legislature for tlie purpose of putting down the Democratic party. This combination did succeed in 1854 so far as to elect a majority of their confederates to the Legislature, and the first important act which they performed was to elect a Senator in the place of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. His term expired in the United States Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their conspiracy to wage war against one-half of the Union. That was the only objection to General Shielda He had served the people of the State with ability in the Legislature, he had served you with fidelity and ability as Auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfaction of the whole country at the head of the Land Department at Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defence of the honor of our flag, and yet he had to be stricken down by this unholy combination. And for what cause ? Merely because he would not join a combination of one half of the States to make war upon the other half, after having poured out his heart's blood for all the States in the Union. Trumbull was put in his place by Abolitionism. How did Trumbull get there ? Before the Abolitionists would consent to go into an election for United States Senator they required all the members of this new combination to show their hands upon this question of Abolitionism. Lovejoy, one of their high-priests, brought in resolutions defining the Abolition creed, and required them to commit themselves on it by their votes, — yea or nay. In that creed, as laid down by Lovejoy, they declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must be put on all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 30 min., and that no more territory should ever be acquired unless slavery was at first prohibited therein ; second, that no more States should ever be received into the Union unless slavery was first prohibited, by Constitutional provision, in such States ; third, that the Fugitive Slave law must be immediately repealed, or, failing in that, then such amendments were to be made to it as would render it useless and inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, etc. The next day after these resolutions were offered they were voted upon, part of them carried, and the others defeated, the same men who voted for them, with only two exceptions, voting soon after for Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate. He came within one or two votes of being elected, but he could not quite get the num- ber required, for the simple reason that his friend Trumbull, who was a party to the bargain by wliich Lincoln was to take Shields's place, controlled a few Abolitionized Democrats in the Legislature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, thus wronging Lincoln by permitting him on each ballot to be almost elected, but not quite, until he forced them to drop Lincoln and elect him (Trumbull), in order to unite the party. Thus you find that although the Legislature was carried that year by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the Abolitionists, and the union of these discordant elements in one harmonious party, yet Trumbull violated his pledge, and played a Yankee trick on Lincoln when thoy came to divide the spoils. Perhaps you would like a little evidence on this point If you would, I will call Colonel James H. Matheny, of Springfield, to the stand, Mr. Lincoln's especial confidential friend for the last twenty yeara, and see what he will say upon the subject of this bargain. Matheny is now tlie Black Republican, or Abolition, candidate for Congress in the Springfield District against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is making speeches all over that part of the State against me and in favo!^^ 18 138 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Lincoln, in concert with Trumbull. He ought to be a good witness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when he was mad because his friend Lincoln had been cheated. It is one of numerous speeches of the same tenor that were made about that time, exposing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. Matheny then said : — ''The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know-Nothings, and renegade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy, on this plan : 1st. That they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats. 2d. That when the Legislature should meet, the officers of that body, such as Speaker, clerks, door- keepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and 3d. That the Whigs were to have the United States Senator. That, accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature, and, when it con- vened^ the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body ; and, thus far, the ' bond ' was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part^ demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln, and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pledging all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting himself^ an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate : and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues." Matheny thought that his friend Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired and contracted with such rogues as Tnimbull and his Abolition associates in that campaign. Lincoln was shoved off the track, and he and his friends all at once began to mope, became sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not ; and thus they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and flattered him back by their assurances that he should certainly be a senator in Douglas's place. In that way the Abolitionists have been enabled to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and now they have brought him into a fight against me, and he is to see if he is again to be cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, required more of them than a promise, and holds their bond, if not security, that Lovejoy shall not cheat him as Trumbull did. When the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield, in June last, for the purpose of nominating State officers only, the Abolitionista could not get Lincoln and his friends into it until they would pledge themselves that Lincoln should be their candidate for the Senate ; and you will find, in proof of this, that that Convention passed a resolution unanimously declaring that Abraham Lincoln was the " first, last, and only choice " of the Eepublicans for United States Senator. He was not willing to have it understood that he was merely their first choice, or their last choice, but their ojUy choice. The Black Eepublican party had nobody else. Browning was nowhere ; Governor Bissell was of no account ; Archie Williams was not to be taken into con- sideration; John Wentworth was not worth mentioning; John M. Palmer was degraded ; and their party presented the extraordinary spectacle of hav- ing but one, — the first, the last, and only choice for the Senate. Suppose that Lincoln should die, what a horrible condition the Republican party would be in ! They would have nobody left. They have no other choice, and it was necessary for them to put themselves before the world in this ludicrous, r^^'^^^lous attitude of having no other choice, in order to quiet Lincoln's sus- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 picions, and assure him that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the trickery by which Trumbull outgeneralled him. Well, gentlemen, I think they will have a nice time of it before they get through. I do not intend to give them any chance to cheat Lincoln at all this time. I intend to relieve him of all anxiety upon that subject, and spare them the mortification of more exposures of contracts violated, and the pledged honor of rogues forfeited. But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself in this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, knowing that he was to be candidate of his party, on account of the arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that he was to receive the nomination of the Con- vention for the United States Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomina- tion, all written and committed to memory, ready to be delivered the moment the nomination was announced. Accordingly, when it was made, he was in readiness, and delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeating them in his own language : — " We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed 'Object, aud with the confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the spread of it^ and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South." There you have Mr. Lincoln's first and main proposition, upon which he bases his claims, stated in his own language. He tells you that this Republic cannot endure permanently divided into Slave and Free States, as our fathers made it He says that they must all become free or all become slave, that they must all be one thing or all be the other, or this government cannot last Why can it not last, if we will execute the government in the same spirit and upon the same principles upon which it is four Jeu ? Lincoln, by his proposition, says to the South : '* If you desire to maintain youi institutions as they are now, you must not be satisfied with minding your own business, but you must invade Illinois and all the other Noithern States, establish t la very in them, and make it universal ;" and in the same language he says to the. North : " You must not be content with regulating your own affairs and mindii*g your own business, but if you desire to maintain your fi*eedom, you must invade the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order to have the States all one thin^ or all the other." I say that this is the inevitable and irresistible result of Mr. Lincoln's argument, inviting a warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall, and become the viciim of the rapacity of the other. What good would follow subh a system of warfare ? Suppose the North should succeed in conquering the South, how much would she be the gainer ? or suppose the South should conquer the North, could the Union be preserved in that way ? Is this sectional warfare to b^ waged between the Northern States and Southern States until they all sh 'l become uniform in 140 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN their local and domestic institutions, merely because Mr. Lincoln says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and pretends that this scriptural quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution ? Washington and his compeers, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, made this government divided into Free and Slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining Free and Slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God, and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand ? It has stood thus divided into Free and Slave States from its organ- ization up to this day. During that period we have increased from four mil- lions to thirty millions of people ; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean ; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on eai^th ; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of the civilized world ; and all this has been done under a Consti- tution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, and under a Union divided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the government. Washington did not l)elieve, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice plantations of South Carolina; they did not believe at that day that in a Bepublic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, that uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They believed then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different cli- mate, and different surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our government was fonned on the principle of diversity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. As my time flies, I can ojly glance at these points, and not present them as fully as I would wish, be'^ause I desire to bring all the points in controversy between the two parties ^jefore you, in order to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I -^nsh to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that de'jision, or any other ever rendered by the Supreme Court I am content to c-ake that decision as it stands delivered by the high- est judicial tribunal on ef.rth, — a tribunal established by the Constitution of the United States for that purpose ; and hence that decision becomes the law of the land, binding on you, en me, and on every other good citizen, whether we like it or not Hence I dc not choose to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and mainly because it deprives the negro of the rights of citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason for that objection as I au: to the objection itself. I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be a c *zen of the United States. I hold that this government AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 141 was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others. I do not believe that tlie Almighty made the negro capable of self- government I am aware that all the Abolition lectnrers that you find travel- ling about through the country are in the habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of I^vejoy in this particular, by reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the signers of the Declaration had no refer- ence to the negro whatever when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their under- standing is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them, when they signed the Declara- tion ; and yet, if they intended to declare that the negro was the equal of the white man, and entitled by divine right to an equality with him, they were bound, as honest men, tliat day and hour to have put their negroes on an equal- ity with themselves. Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyes to Heaven they implored the diVine blessing upon them, during the seven years' bloody war they had to fight to maintain that Declaration, never dreaming that they were violating divine law by still holding the negroes in bondage and depriving them of equality. My friends, I am in favor of preserving this government as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, which he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask me what these rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself Illinois has already decided the question. We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our limits, but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits ; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sovereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man and the negro ; but wliile we had that right to decide the question for ourselves, we must recognize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a differ- ent one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question. Kentucky has decided that question for herself She has said that within her limits a negro shall not exercise any political rights, and she has also said that a portion of the negroes under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the con- trary for our policy. New York hfis decided that in that Stiite a negro may 142 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN vote if he has $250 worth of property, and if he owns that much he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to negro suffrage anywhere and under any circumstances ; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court have decided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of voting upon free negroes, I am not going to make war upon New York because she has adopted a policy repugnant to my feel- ings. But New York must mind her own business, and keep her n^ro suffrage to hei*self, and not attempt to force it upon us. In the State of Maine they have decided that a negro may vote and hold office on an equality with a white man. I had occasion to say to the sen- ators fi*om Maine, in a discussion last session, that if they thought that the white people within the limits of their State were no better than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that my white constituents of Illinois were no better than negroes, or we would be sure to quarrel The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, and declares that each State has the right to settle this question of suffrage for itself, and all ques- tions as to the relations between, the white man and the negro. Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. I receive it as law, and I say that while those States are adopting regulations on that subject disgusting and abhorrent, according to my views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own business and let us alone. I now come back to the question. Why cannot this Union exist forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the principles upon which our institutions were founded ; to wit, the right of each State to do as it pleases, without meddling with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-bound Republic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled in the history of the world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from the Old World is increasing, requiring us to expand and acquire new territory from time to time, in order to give our people land to live upon. If we live upon the principle of State rights and State sov- ereignty, each State regulating its own affairs and minding its own business, we can go on and extend indefinitely, just as fast and as far as we need the territory. The time may come, indeed has now come, when our interests would be advanced by the acquisition of the Island of Cuba. When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without interference on the part of the Fedend Gov- ernment or of any State of this Union. So, wlien it becomes necessary to acquire any portion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the adjoining islands, we must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please, — to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never have inquired and never will inquire whether a new State, applying for admission, has slavery or not for one of her institutions. If the Constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people, and embodies their will, and they have the requi- site population, I will admit them, with slavery or without it, just as that people shall determine. My objection to the Lecompton Constitution did not consist in the fact that it made Kansas a Slave State. I would have been as much opposed to its admission under such a Constitution as a Free State as I was opposed to its admission under it as a Slave State. I hold that that was AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 143 a question which that people had a right to decide for themselves, and that no power on earth ought to have interfered with that decision. In my opinion, the Lecompton Constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will ; and the recent election in that Territory, at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that I was right in saying, when the Constitution was presented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not embody their will. If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity, and transmit them unimpaired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with religious good faith that great principle of self-government which guarantees to each and every State, old and new, the right to make just such constitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with their own constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever you sanction the doctrine that Congress may crowd a constitution down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you will subvert the great fundamental principle upon which all our free insti- tutions rest. In the future I have no fear that the attempt will ever be made. President Buchanan declared in his annual message that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, requiring a constitution to be submitted to the people, should be followed in all future cases ; and if he stands by that recommendation, there will be no division in the Democratic party on that principle in the future. Hence, the great mission of the Democracy is to unite the fraternal feeling of the whole country, restore peace and quiet, by teaching each State to mind its own business, and regulate its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying out the Constitution as our fathers made it, and thus to preserve the Union and render it perpetual in all time to come. Why should we not act as our fathers who made the government? There was no sectional strife in Washington's army. They were all brethren of a common confederacy; they fought under a common flag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common destiny ; and to this end they poured out their blood in common streams, and shared, in some instances, a common grave. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen : There is very much in the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over which I shall have no controversy with him. In so far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic rela- tions, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can tell him, though I repeat it again and again, insist- ing that I have no difference with him upon this subject I have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impos- sible for him to find anything that I have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. I hold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in all the States, without interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they please ; and I deny that I have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only say again that I am placed improperly — altogether improperly, in spite of all I can say — when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purposes in regard to that matter. While I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that Judge Douglas has put He says, " Why can't this Union 144 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN endure perraanently, half slave and half free ? " I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. Another form of his question is, " Why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it ? " That is the exact difficulty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. I say, in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind rested in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. I say when this government was first estab- lished, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new Territories of the United States, where it had not existed. But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but readopted the policy of the fathers, by restricting it to the limits it has already covered, — restricting it from the new Territories. I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks — the man who assaulted Senator Sumner on the floor of the Senate, and who was complimented with dinners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat — in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. That was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an opinion as we can never get from Judge Doug- las or anybody in favor of slavery in the North at alL You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. He said at the same time that the framers of our government did not have the knowledge that experience has taught us ; that experience and the invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the per- petuation of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the government left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. I insist that this is the difierence between Judge Douglas and myself, — that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I insist upon this govern- ment being placed where our fathers originally placed it I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on the statute books of Congress of a i)olicy in the origin of government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographical line ; that he saw an indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore he set about studying up a way to settle the institution on the right basis, — the basis which he thought it ought to have been placed upon at first ; and in that speech he confesses that he seeks to place it, not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, but upon one gotten up on " original principles." When he asks me why we cannot get along with it in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis, that he has him- self been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his speech of the 22d of last March will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about flxing the institution upon an altogether difierent set of principles. I think I have fully answered him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis where our fathers left it, by showing that he has himself changed the whole policy of the government in that regard. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAa 145 Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that was made between Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of Judge Douglas's speech on this subject, — I wish simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do know that there is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him so before. I don't want any harsh language indulged in, hut I do not know how to deal with this persistent insisting on a story that I know to be utterly without truth. It used to be a fashion amongst men that wlien a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't know how to meet this kind of an argument. I don't want to have a tiglit with Judge Douglas, and I have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly to say that, from the banning to the end of all that story about a bargain between Judge Trumbull and myself, thcri u ■not a word of truth in it. I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth of his story. He brings forward here and reads from what he con- tends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trumbull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about I believe he did. I contradicted it instantly, and it has been contradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody has produced any proof, because tliere is none. Now, whether the speech which the Judge brings forward here is really the one Matheny made, 1 do not know, and I hope the Judge will pardon me for doubting the genuineness of this document, since hia production of those Springfield resolu- tions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any great length upon this matter. I can say nothing when a long story like this is told, except it is not true, and demand that he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can do, and I leave it in that way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. The Judge lias gone over a long account of the old Whig and Democratic parties, and it connects itself with this charge against TrumbuU and myself. He says that they i^^eed upon a compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850 ; that in a National Democratic Convention resolutions were passed to abide by that compromise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says that the Whig party in National Convention agreed to abide by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. I understand the Judge to be altogether right about that ; I understand that part of the history of the country as stated by hiro to he correct. I recollect that I, as a member of that jury, acquiesced in that compromise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day, — not a bit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it baa got an extremely good name since it has passed away. When that Compromise was made it did not repeal tbe old Missouri Com- J promise. It left a region of United States territory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 86 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress. This Compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose to repeal it But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I timl no fault with him)( as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, to bring in a bill for the ( zation ofa Territorial Government, — first of one, then of two Territorial 146 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN of that line. When he did so, it ended in his inserting a provision substan- tially repealing the Missouri Compromise. That was because the Compromise of 1850 had not repealed it. And now I ask why be could not have let that Compromise alone ? We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fuss about it. All had acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to form goveniments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing ? Was it necessary to the organiza- tion of a Territory ? Not at alL Iowa lay north of the line, and had been organized as a Territory and come into the Union as a State without disturb- ing that Compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that the. Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Compromise of 1850. My own opinion is, that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain the position that that Compromise was virtually repealed by the Compromise of 1850 would show that they are the merest fallacies. I have the Report that Judge Douglas first brought into Congress at the time of the introduction of the Nebraska bill, which in its original form did not repeal the Missouri Com- promise, and he there expressly stated that he had forborne to do so because it liod not been done by the Compromise of 1850. I close this part of the discus- sion on my pait by asking him the question again, " Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let it alone ? " In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, by the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion in which I said that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different insti- tutions of the States of the Union ; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us ? Not at alL Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar ? Or because we have a different class relative to the production of fiour in this State? Have they produced any differences ? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union. But has it been so with this element of slavery ? Have we not always bad quarrels and difficulties over it ? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it ? Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts to spread it over more terri- tory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas ; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war ; and it is so now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 147 of whom are my political friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work ? Will not the same cause that produced agitation in 1820, wlien the Missouri Compromise was formed, — that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times, — work out the same results always? Do you think that the nature of man will be changed, that the same causes that pro- duced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another ? This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extends. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, — that the agitation will come to an end, — until it shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition ? This is the view I enteitain, and this is the reason why I enter- tained it, as Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. Now, my friends^ there is one other thing that I feel myself under some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a very ram- bling way, I was about saying — spoken of the platforms for which ho seeks to hold me responsible. He says, " Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles in all places alike ? " and he reads from an advertise- ment that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know whether we cannot 8i>eak frankly and manfully, as he and his friends do. How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments ? A Convention of his party in this State met on the 21st of April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments " frankly and manfully " On the 9th of June, Colonel tfohn Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and others, calling themselves National Democrats, met in Springfield and adopted a set of reso- lutions which are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas's platform. Now, what is the reason, that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his ? Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by his platform ? Again, in reference to our platform : On the 16th of June the Republicans had their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear and dis- tinct as Judge Douglas's. In it they spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that platform ? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has supported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to that platform ? Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one ? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me, — that I am res]X)nsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend, — then it is a good rule for him. I ask. Is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me ? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think differently. Judge ? Mr. Douglas : I do not. Mr. Lincoln: Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am 148 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN glad of it Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate ? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me here that he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do not comprehend how he could answer me more fully if he answered me at greater length. I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me, what I, as a lawyer, would call a good plea to a bad declaration. I understand that it is a maxim of law that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declaration. I think that the opinions the Judge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, is a bad declaration against me ; but if I can bring the same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I propose to try it At Freeport, Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in producing resolutions and documents of various sorts, as I understood, to make me some- how responsible for them ; and I propose now doing a little of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very clever gentleman by the name of Thomp- son Campbell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, a political friend of Judge Douglas and opponent of mine, was a candidate for Congress in the Galena District He was interrogated as to his views on this same slavery question. I have here before me the interrogatories, and Campbell's answers to them. I will read them : — Intebrooatories. Ist Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially support a bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the United States 1 2d. Will you vote for aud support a bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia ) 3d. Will you op]X)se the admission of any Slave States which may be formed out of Texas or the Territories 1 4th. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law passed at the recent session of Congress ? 5th. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committee of that House so as to give the Free States their just influence in the business of legislation ) 6th. What are your views, not only as to the constitutional right of Congress to prohibit the slave-trade between the States, but also as to the expediency of exercising that right immediately ? Campbell's Reply. To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in the affirmative. To the third interrogatory I reply, that I am opposed to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union^ that may be formed out of Texas or any otlier Territory. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories I unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. To the sixth interrogatory I reply, that so long as the Slave States continue to treat slaves as articles of commerce, the Constitution confers power on Congress to pass laws regulating that peculiar COMMERCE, and that the protection of Human Rights imperatively demands the interposition of every constitutional means to pre- vent this most inhuman and iniquitous traffic. T. Campbell. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was elected to Congress on that platform, as the Democratic candidate in the Galena District, against Martin 1\ Sweet. Judge Douglas : Give me the date of the letter. Mr. Lincoln: The time Campbell ran was in 1850. I have not the exact date here. It was some time in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the answer given. Campbell was elected to Congress, and served out his term. I think a second election came up before he served out his term, and he was not re-elected. Whether defeated or not nominated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nominated for re-election by the Democratic party, by acclamation.] At the end of his term his very good friend Judge Douglas got him a high office from President Pierce, and sent him off to California. Is not that the fact ? Just at the end of his term in Congress it appears that our mutual friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friend Campbell a good office, and sent him to California upon it. And not only so, but on the 27th of last month, when Judge Douglas and myself spoke at Freeport in joint discussion, there was his same friend Campbell, come all the way from California, to help the Judge l^eat me ; and there was poor Martin P. Sweet standing on the platform, trying to help poor me to be elected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas's friends. So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a Congressional Convention assembled at Joliet, and it nominated K. S. Molony for Congress, and unani- mously adopted the following resolution : — " Resolved^ That we are uuconipromisingly opposed to the extension of slavery ; and while we would not make such oppositiou a ground of interference with the inter- ests of the States where it exists, yet we moderately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress to oppose its extension into Territory now free, by all means com- patible with the obligations of the Constitution, and with ^^od faith to our sister States ; that these principles were recognized by the Ordinance of 1787, which received the sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith." Subsequently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. Molony which had been addressed to Campbell, as above, with the exception of the 6th, respecting the interstate slave trade, to which Dr. Molony, the Demo- cratic nominee for Congress, replied as follows : — I received the written interrogatories this day, and, as you will see by the La Salle " Democrat " and Ottawa " Free Trader," I took at Peru on the 5th, and at Ottawa on the 7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories Ist and 2d ; and in relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Fi'ee Territory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported in said papers, was emphatically and distinctly opposed to it. In relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Texas, whether I shall go against it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may here- after form of the true meaning and nature of the resohitious of annexation. If, by said resolutions, the honor and good fuith of the nation is pledged to admit more Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for the admission of Ruch State, then I should, if in Congress, vote for their admission. But if not so PLEnoEO and bound by sacred contract, then a bill for the admission of more Slave States from Texas would never receive my vote. To your fourth interrogatory I answer most decidedly in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported remarks at Ottawa last Monday. To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirmative most cordially^ and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure the nomination and election of a man who 150 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN will accomplish the objects of said interrogatories. I most cordially approve of the resolutions adopted at the union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th Sep- tember ult. Yours, etc., R S. Molony. All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is, that he was the regularly nominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his district ; was elected at that time, at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office at Danville. (I never heard anything of Judge Douglas's instrumentality in this.) He held this office a considerable time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there were handbills scattered about notifying the public that after our debate was over, R S. Molony would make a Democratic speech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of my own personal knowledge. It is added here to this resolution, and truly I believe, that — '* Among those who participated in the Joliet Convention, and who supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of the Convention and in his reply as above given, we call at random the following names, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Democrats : — " Cook County, — E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, Arno Voss, Thomas Hoyno, Isaac Cook." I reckon we ought to except Cook. " F. C. Sherman. " Will, — Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. " Kane, — B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington, Elijah Wilcox. " McHenry, — W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. " La SaUe, — John Hise, William Reddick." William Eeddick ! another one of Judge Douglas's friends that stood on the stand with him at Ottawa, at the time the Judge says my knees trembled so that I had to be carried away. The names are all here : — " Du Page, — Nathan Allen. " De Kalb, — Z. B. Mayo." Here is another set of resolutions which I think are apposite to the matter in hand. On the 28tli of February of the same year, a Democratic District Convention was held at Naperville to nominate a candidate for Circuit Judge. Among the delegates were Bowen and Kelly, of Will ; Captain Naper, H. H. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du Page ; W. M. Jackson, J. M. Strode, P. W. Piatt, and Enos W. Smith, of McHenry ; J. Horsman and others, of Winnebago. Colonel Strode presided over the Convention. The following resolutions were unani- mously adopted, — the first on motion of P. W. Piatt, the second on motion of William M. Jackson : — ** Resolved, That this Convention is in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, both in Principle and Practice^ and that we know of no good reason why any person should oppose the largest latitude in Free Sotly Free Territory and Free Speech. " Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the time has arrived when all mai should be/reey whites as well as others." Judge Douglas : What is the date of those resolutions ? Mr. Lincoln : I understand it was in 1850. but I do not know it. I do AND ST£PHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 not state a thing and say I know it, when I do not. But I have the highest belief that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that there is an error in it I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. But what I was goiug to comment upon is an extract from a newspaper in De Kalb County ; and it strikes me as being rather singular, I confess, under the circumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that county, who is a candidate for the Legislature, for the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to re-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [De Kiilh County "Sentinel"], and in that paper I find the extract I am going to read. It is part of an editorial article in which he was electioneering as fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against me. It was a curious thing, I think, to be in such a paper. I will agree to that, and the Judge may make the most of it : — "Our education has been such that we have ever been rather in favor of the equality of the blacks ; that is, thai they shovld enjoy all the privileges of the whites where they reside. Wo are awaro that this is not a very popular doctrine. We liavo bad many a confab with some who are now strong ' Ivcpublicans,' we taking the broad ground of equality, and they the opposite ground. " We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it would not work as well where the blacks are more numerous. We have no doubt of the right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if it is one. Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [in this I agree with him] ; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their Senators and- Representatives in Congress, aiid to vote for President. With us * worth makes the man, and want of it the fel- low.' We have seen many a 'nigger' that we thought more of than some white men.*' That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now, I do not want to leave myself in an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think the Judge is responsible for this article ; but he is quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that is fair enough. I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic State Conven- tion in Judge Douglas's own good old State of Vermont, that I think ought to be good for him too : — '' Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalienable in man, and that herein all men are equal. " Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Fcdond Government to abolish slav- ery in the several States, but we do claim for it Constitutional power perpetually to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, it exists. " Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exorcised in prohibiting the introduction and existence of slavery in New Mexico and California, in abolishing slavery and the slave-trade in tlio District of Columbia, on the high seas, and wher- ever else, under the Constitution, it can bo reached. " Resolved, That no more Slave States should bo admitted into the Federal Union. " Resolved, That the Goveniment ought to return to its ancient policy, not to ex- tend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery.*' At Freeport I answered several interrogatories that had been propounded to me by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The Judge has yet not seen fit to find any fault with the position that I took in regard to those seven 152 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN interrogatories, which were certainly broad enough, in all conscience, to cover the entire ground. In my answers, which have been printed, and all have had the opportunity of seeing, I take the ground that those who elect me must expect that I will do nothing which will not be in accordance with those answers. I have some right to assert that Judge Douglas has no fault to find with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust me upon different ground, without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining of which from me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time I propounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I would reserve myself for a future instalment when I got them ready. The Judge, in answering me upon that occasion, put in what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my inter- rogatories. The first one of these interrogatories I have before me, and it is in these words : — '* Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into the Union imdcr it, be/ore thoy have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the English bill, — some ninety-three thousand, — will you vote to admit them 1 " As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no, — I will or I wont He answers at very considerable length, rather quarrelling with me for asking the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done something that I ought to say something about, and finally getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means to be under- stood he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of Kansas. I only bring this forward now for the purpose of sayiug that if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. But if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. He has the right to remove any mis- understanding I may have. I only mention it now, that I may hereafter assume this to be the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this : — Question 2. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution 1 " To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a Constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be done by the Territorial Legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protec- tion of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legis- lation to it For the sake of clearness, I state it again : that they can exclude slavery from the Territory, 1st, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, 2d, by unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that any Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Tenitories is unconstitutional ; that they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former AND STEPHEN .A. DOUQULS. 153 proposition, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and from that other Constitutional provision, that no per- son shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Hence they reach the conclusion that as the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an Act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Supreme Court I understand also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision ; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Territory, unless in violation of that decision ? That is the difficulty. In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge Trumbull, in a speech substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution. Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the " Congressional Globe," under date of June 9th, 1856. The Judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not vxis a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the " Congressional Globe," in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance, — that it was a question for the Supreme Court I main- tain that when he says, after the Supreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court He shifts his • ground. I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court ? Has not the Supreme Court decided that question ? When he now says the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people ? Does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people ? This is a very simple proposi- tion, — a very plain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us that whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by withholding necessary " police regulations " keep slavery out Ho did not make any such answer. I submit to you now whether the new state of the case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his original ground. Would not this be the impression of every fair- minded man? I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country with- out police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these " police regulations " which the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it Not only so, but is there not another fact : how came this Dred Scott decision to be made ? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Tenitory, claiming his freedom because the Act of Congress pro- hibited his l>eing so held there. Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there vnthatU police regulations f There is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only law, 20 154 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN but the enforcement of law to keep it out That is the history of this country upon the subject. I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that the Constitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in the Territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of the Territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case ? It is a maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy ; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. Again : I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the Legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before enter- ing upon your duties ? Swear to support the Constitution of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, tliat the Constitution of the United States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Ter- ritory ; that they are his property : how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property ? What do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State, or of the United States ? Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights estab- lished by that Constitution as may be practically needed ? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support ? Do you support the Con- stitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation ? Do you not violate and disregard your oath ? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. There can be nothing in the words '* support the Constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the Con- stitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force against the Judge's doctrine of " unfriendly legislation." How could you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right t That would be violating your own view of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void ? Not a moment. Lastly, I would ask : Is not Congress itself under obligation to give legis- lative support to any right that is established under the United States Con- stitution ? I repeat the question : Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Con- stitution ? A member of Congress swears to support the Constitution of the United States ; and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection ? Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to a Fugitive Slave law ? Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when it is passed ? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves ; and that right is, as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legis- lation that will enforce it. The mere declaration, " No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be deliv- ered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due," is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAa 155 would a member of Congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract, vote for a Fugitive law, as I would deem it my duty to do ? Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. And although it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to support the Constitution ; and having so sworn, I cannot conceive that I do support it if I withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practical And if that is true in regard to a Fugitive Slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories ? For this decision is a just exposition of the Constitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is the one right any better than the otiier ? Is there any man who, while a member of Congress, would give support to the one any more than the other ? If I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the Terri- tories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding the view that the Constitution establishes that right. If I did it at all, it would be because I deny that this decision properly construes the Constitution. But if I acknowl- edge, with Judge Douglas, that this decision properly construes the Constitu- tion, I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it needed. At the end of what I have said here I propose to give the Judge my fifth interrogatory, which he may take and answer at his leisure. My fifth inter- rogatory is this : — If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? Judge Douglas : Will you repeat that ? I want to answer that question. Mr. Lincoln : If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation? I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made, he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme Court had decided that a Territorial legislature cannot exclude slavery. Precisely what the Judge would say upon the subject, — whether he would say definitely that he does not understand they have so decided, or whether he would say he does imderstand that the court have so decided, — I do not know; but I know that in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not decided yet ; and in his answer to me at Freeport, he spoke of it, so far, again, as I can comprehend it, as a thing that had not yet been decided. Now, I hold that if the Judge does entertain that view, I think that he is not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has not decided anything save the mere question of jurisdictioa I know the legal arguments that can be made, — that after a court has decided that it cannot take jurisdiction in a case, it then has decided all that is before it, and that is the end of it. A plausible argu- ment can be made in favor of that proposition; but I know that Judge Douglas has said in one of his speeches that the court went forward, like honest me^i as they were, and decided all the points in the case. If any points are really extra-judicially decided because not necessarily before them, then this one as to the power of the Territorial legislature to exclude slavery is one of them, as also the one that the Missouri Compromise was null and void. They are both extra-judicial, or neither is, according as the court held that 156 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN they had no jurisdiction in the case between the parties, because of want of capacity of one party to maintain a suit in that court. I want, if I have sufiicient time, to show that the court did pass its opinion; but that is the only thing actuaUy done in the case. If they did not decide, they showed what they were ready to decide whenever the matter was before them. What is that opinion ? After having argued that Congress had no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a United States Territory, they then used language to this effect : That inasmuch as Congress itself could not exercise such a power, it followed as a matter of course that it could not authorize a Terri- torial government to exercise it ; for the Territorial legislature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus it expressed its opinion emphatically against the power of a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery, leaving us in just as little doubt on that point as upon any other point they really decided. Now, my fellow-citizens, I will detain you only a little while longer ; my time is nearly out. I find a report of a speech made by Judge Douglas at Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, — published, I believe, in the " Missouri Republican,'* — on the 9th of this month, in which Judge Douglas says : — " You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked him if he concurred in each and all of the principles set forth in it. He would not answer these ques- tions. At last I said frankly, I wish you to answer them, because when I get them up here where the color of your principles are a little darker than in Egypt, I intend to trot you down to Joncsboro. The very notice that I was going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble in the knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. He laid up seven days, and in the mean time held a consulta- tion with his political physicians ; they had Lovejoy and Famsworth and all the leaders of the Abolition party, they consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came to the conclusion that he would answer, so he came up to Freeport last Friday." Now, that statement altogether furnishes a subject for philosophical con- templation. I have been treating it in that way, and I have really come to the conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than by believing the Judge is crazy. If he was in his right mind, I cannot conceive how he would have risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own friends who stood there, and knew, as to my having been carried from the platform, that there was not a word of truth in it. Judge Douglas : Did n't they carry you off ? Mr. Lincoln : There I that question illustrates the character of this man Douglas exactly. He smiles now, and says, *' Didn't they carry you off?" But he said then " he had to he carried off; ** and he said it to convince the country that he had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carried away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, " Did n't they carry you off?" Yes, they did. But, Judge Dovglas^ why didnH you tell the truth t I would like to know why you did n't tell the truth about it And then again, " He laid up seven days." He puts this in print for the people of the country to read as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses he would not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thou- sands of his own friends, who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven days at Henry, Marshall County, Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, McDonough County, including all the necessary travel to meet him again at Freeport at the end of the six days. Now, I say there is no charitable way to look at that statement, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There is another thing in that statement that alarmed me AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 167 very greatly as he states it, that he was going to " trot me down to Egypt*' Thereby he would have you to infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me, — that I could not be got here, unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. That statement he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I had made the stipulation to come down here, and that he himself Jiad been very reluctant to enter into the stipulation. More than all this. Judge Douglas, when he made that statement, must have been crazy, and wholly out of his sober senses, or else he would have known that when he got me down here, that promise — that windy promise — of his powers to annihilate me, would n't amount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried away trembling ? Let the Judge go on ; and after he is done with his half hour, I want you all, if I can't go home myself, to let me stay and rot here; and if anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel and put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, there is something extraordinary in this statement. I ask you if you know any other living man who would make such a statement ? 1 will ask my friend Casey, over there, if he would do such a thing ? Would ho send that out, and have his men take it as the truth ? Did the Judge talk of trotting me down to Egypt to scare me to death ? Wliy, I know this people better than he does. I was raised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But the Judge was raised further north, and perhaps ho has some horrid idea of what this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked about this matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing ; and yet the smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The Judge has set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we meet at different places I am literally in his clutches, — that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is one of the ways he has taken to create that impres- sion. I don't know any other way to meet it, except this. I don't want to quarrel with him, — to call him a liar ; but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to call him, if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve all my fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time, now, is very nearly out, and I give up the trifle that is left to the Judge, to let him set my knees trembling again, if he can. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. My friends, while I am very grateful to you for the enthusiasm which you show for me, I will say in all candor, that your quietness will be much more agreeable than your applause, inasmuch as you deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer. I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark upon this serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did say thei^ in a play- ful manner that when I put these questions to Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa he. failed to answer, and that ho trembled and had to be carried off the stand, and required seven days to get up his reply. That he did not walk oflf from tliat v .^^. stand he will not deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand/'^-^'*. '" with me, a few persons carried him home on their shouldera and laid him< \ ' down, he will admit.*^ I wish to say to you that whenever I degrade my /'^ .- friends and myself by allowing them to carry me on their backs along through ' the public streets, when I am able to walk, I am willing to be deemed craz^. / 158 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I did not 8ay whether I beat him or he beat me in the argument It is true I put these questions to him, and I put them, not as mere idle questions, but showed that I based them upon the creed of the Black Republican party as declared by their conventions in that portion of the State which he depends upon to elect him, and desired to know whether he indorsed that creed. He would not answer. When I reminded him that I intended bringing him into Egypt and renewing my questions if he refused to answer, he then consulted, and did get up his answers one week after, — answers which I may refer to in a few minutes, and show you how equivocal they are. My object was to make him avow whether or not he stood by the platform of his party; the resolutions I then read, and upon which I based my questions, had been adopted by his party in the Galena Congressional District, and the Chics^ and Bloomington Congressional Districts, composing a large majority of the counties in this State that give Bepublican or Abolition majorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doctrines laid down in these resolu- tions were in substance put forth in Lovejoy's resolutions, which were voted for by a majority of his party, some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of his party. Hence, I laid a foundation for my questions to him before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his party. He says that he answered my questions. One of them was whether he would vote to admit any more Slave States into the Union. The creed of the Bepublican party as set forth in the resolutions of their various conventions was, that they would under no circumstances vote to admit another Slave State. It was put forth in the Lovejoy resolutions in the Legislature ; it was put forth and passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abolition or Bepublican majorities, or elect members to the Legislature of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would vote for or against the admission of another Slave State, in the event the people wanted it. He first answered that he was not pledged on the subject, and then said : — " In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in the position of having to pass pn that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union ; but I mnst add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair chance and clean field when they come to adopt a Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union." Now analyze that answer. In the first place, he says he would be exceed- ingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the ques- tion of the admission of a Slave State. Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position ? I trust the people of Illinois will not put him in a position which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be another Slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to vote for one. What is that contingency ? " If Congress keeps slavery out by law while it is a Territory, and then the people should have a fair chance and should adopt slavery, uninfluenced by the presence of the institution," he sup- posed he would have to admit the State. Suppose Congress should not keep AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 slavery out during their Territorial existence, then how would he vote when the people applied for admission into the Union with a slave constitution ? That he does not answer ; and that is the condition of every Territory we have now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by Act of Congress ; and when I put the question to Mr. Lincoln, whether he will vote for the admis- sion with or without slavery, as her people may desire, he will not answer, and you have not got an answer from him. In Nebraska, slavery is not pro- hibited by Act of Congress, but the people are allowed, under the Nebraska bill, to do as they please on the subject ; and when I ask him whether he will vote to admit Nebraska with a slave constitution if her people desire it, he will not answer. So with New Mexico, Washington Territory, Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from Texas. You cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His answer only applies to a given case, to a condition, — things which he knows do not exist in any one Territory in the Union. He tries to give you to understand that he would allow the people to do as they please, and yet he dodges the question as to every Territory in the Union. I now ask why cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of these Ter- ritories ? He has not done it, and he will not do it. The Abolitionists up north understand that this answer is made with a view of not committing himself on any one Territory now in existence It is so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that applies to any one Territory, or applies to the new States which by compact we are pledged to admit out of Texas, when they have the requisite population and desire admission. I submit to you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how he would vote in any one of these cases. " He would be sorry to be put in the position." Wliy would he be sorry to be put in this position if his duty required him to give the vote ? If the people of a Terri- tory ought to be permitted to come into the Union as a State, with slavery or without it, as they pleased, why not give the vote admitting them cheerfully ? If in his opinion they ought not to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that he would cheerfully vote against their admission ? His intimation is that conscience would not let him vote "No," and he would be sorry to do that which his conscience would compel him to do as an honest man. In regard to the contract, or bargain, between Trumbull, the Abolitionists, and him, which he denies, I wish to say that the charge can be proved by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, Lovejoy, Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale, and Banks were travelling the State at that time making speeches on the same side and in the same cause with him. He contents himself with the simple denial that no such thing occurred. Does he deny that he, and Trumbull, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and deserters from the Democratic party did make speeches all over this State in the same common cause ? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as I have read it from his printed speech ? Matheny spoke of his own personal knowledge of that bargain existing between Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln's confidential friend, and is now a candidate for Congress, and is canvassing the Springfield District for Lin- coln. I assert that I can prove the cliarge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I can summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. I have the statement of another man to the same effect as that made by Matheny, 160 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN which I am not permitted to use yet; but Jim Matheuy is a good witness on that point, and the history of the country is conclusive upon it That Lin- coln up to that time had. been a Whig, and then undertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial ; that Trumbull up to that time had been a Democrat, and deserted^ and under- took to Abolitionize the Democracy, and take them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial ; that they are both now active, leading, distinguished mem- bers of this . Abolition Bepublican party, in full communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied. But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his party. He complains because I hold him responsible; and in order to avoid the issue, he attempts to show that individuals in the Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Abolition sentiments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candidate for Congress in 1850, published the letter which Lincoln read. When I asked Lincoln for the date of that letter, he could not give it. The date of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used it, though I take it for granted that Lincoln did not know the date. If he will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was pub- lished only two days before the election, and was never seen until after it, except in one county. Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by the Democratic party if that letter had been made public in his district As to Molony, it is true he uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Lincoln, and the best Democrats would not vote for him for that reason. I returned from Washington after the passage of the Compromise Measures in 1850, and when I found Molony running under Wentworth's tutelage and on his platform, I denounced him, and declared that he was no Democrat In ray speech at Chicago, just before the election that year, I went before the infuriated people of that city and vindicated the Compromise Measures of 1850. Remember the city council had passed resolutions nullifying Acts of Congress and instructing the police to withhold their assistance from the execution of the laws ; and as I was the only man in the city of Chicago who was responsible for the passage of the Compromise Measures, I went before the crowd, justified each and every one of those measures ; and let it be said, to the eternal honor of the people of Chicago, that when they were convinced by my exposition of those measures that they were right, and they had done wrong in opposing them, they repealed their nullifying resolutions, and declared that they would acquiesce in and support the laws of the land. These facts are well known, and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, dating back to 1849-50, which are contradicted by the whole tenor of the Democratic creed. But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held responsible for the Black Repub- lican doctrine of no more Slave States. Famsworth is the candidate of his party to-day in the Chicago District, and he made a speech in the last Con- gress in which he called upon God to palsy his right arm if he ever voted for the admission of another Slave State, whether the people wanted it or not. Lovejoy is making speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, and taking ground against any more Slave States. Washbume, the Black Republican candidate for Congress in the Galena District, is making speeches in favor of this same Abolition platform declaring no more Slave States. Why are men running for Congress in the northern districts, and taking that Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt and in the centre of the State, and objects to it so as to /, - ■ AND STEPHEN A. D0U6LA& 161 get votes here ? Let me tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the south and in the centre, they present the extraordinary spectacle of a " house divided against itself," and hence " cannot stand." I now bring down upon him the vengeance of his own scriptural quotation, and give it a more appro- priate application than he did, when I say to him that his party. Abolition in one end of the State, and opposed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and cannot stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments. Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a mighty sound and good man of him on all these questions. I do not know that the place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his political principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists whilst spending the money got for the negroes they sold ; and I do not know that an Abolitionist from Indiana or Kentucky ought to have any more credit because he was bom and raised among slaveholders. I do not know that a native of Kentucky is more excusable because, raised among slaves, his father and mother having owned slaves, he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders the graves of his father and mother, and breathes curses upon the institutions under which he was born, and his father and mother bred. True, I was not bom out west here. I was born away down in Yankee land, I was bom in a valley in Ver- mont, with the high mountains around me. I love the old green mountains and valleys of Vermont, where I was bora, and where I played in my child- hood. I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first time for twenty odd years. Wlien I got there they treated me very kindly. They invited me to the Commencement of their college, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and conferred upon me the degree of LL D. in Latin (doctor of laws), — the same as they did old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago ; and I give you my word and honor I understood just as much of the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary degree, they called upon me for a speech ; and I got up, with my heart full and swelling with gratitude for their kindness, and I said to them, " My friends, Vermont is the most glorious spot on the face of this globe for a man to be bom in, provided he emigrates when he is very young." I emigrated when I was very young. I came out here when I was a boy, and I found my mind liberalized, and my opinions enlarged, when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heavens to bound my vision, instead of hav- ing them circumscribed by the little narrow ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But I discard all flings of the land where a man was bora. I wish to be judged by my principles, by those great public measures and constitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the per- petuity of this Eepublic now rest Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, and desired my answer. As I have said before, I did not put a question to him that I did not first lay a foundation for by showing that it was a part of the platform of the party whose votes he is now seeking, adopted in a majority of the counties where he now hopes to get a majority, and supported by the candidates of his party now running in those counties. But I will answer his question. It is as follows : " If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should 21 162 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN need and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? " I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. Mr. Lincoln could have found an answer to his question in the Cincinnati platform, if he had desired it. The Democratic party have always stood by that great principle of non-interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories alike, and I stand on that platform now. Now, I desire to call your attention to the fact that Lincoln did not define his own position in his own question. How does he stand on that question ? He put the question to me at Freeport whether or not I would vote to admit ICansas into the Union before she had 93,420 inhabitants. I answered him at once that, it having been decided that Kansas had now population enough for a Slave State, she bad population enough for a Free State. I answered the question unequivocally ; and then I asked him whether be would vote for or against the admission of Kansas before she had 93,420 inhabitants, and he would not answer me. To-day he has called attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my answer on that question was not quite plain enough, and yet he has not answered it himself. He now puts a question in relation to Congressional interference in the Territories to me. I answer him direct, and yet he has not answered the question himself. I ask you whether a man has any right, in common decency, to put questions in these public discussions, to his opponent, which he will not answer himself, when they are pressed home to him. I have asked him three times whether he would vote to admit Kansas whenever the people applied with a constitution of their own making and their own adoption, under circumstances that were fair, just, and unexceptionable ; but I cannot get an answer from him. Nor will he answer the question which he put to me, and which I have just answered in relation to Congressional interference in the Territories, by making a slave code there. It IB true that he goes on to answer the question by arguing that under the decision of the Supreme Court it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, under the decision that the court has made ; and if he believes in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the vote. I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in ac- cordance with his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, the tribunal created by the Constitution to decide the question, is final and binding, is he not bound by itjust as strongly as if he was for it instead of against it origi- nally ? Is every man in this land allowed to resist decisions he does not like, and only support those that meet his approval ? What are important courts worth, unless their decisions are binding on all good citizens ? It is the fun- damental principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final. It is created for that purpose ; so that when you cannot agree among yourselves on a dis- puted point, you appeal to the judicial tribunal, which steps in and decides for you ; and that decision is then binding on every good citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with Mr. Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he says that if that decision is binding, he is a perjured man if he does not vote for a slave code in the dilBFereut Territories of this Union. Well, if you [turning to Mr. Lincoln] are not going to resist the decision, if you obey it, and do not intend to array mob law against the constituted authorities, then. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 according to your own statement, you will be a perjured man if you do not vote to establish slavery in these Territories. My doctrine is, that even taking Mr. Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of a man to carry his slaves into the Territories of the United States if he pleases, yet after he gets there he needs affirmative law to make that right of any valua The same doctrine not only applies to slave property, but all other kinds of property. Chief Justice Taney places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with other property. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor store : he has a right to take groceries and liquors there ; but the mode of selling them, and the circumstances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies, must be prescribed by local legislation ; and if that is unfriendly, it will drive him out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence of local legislation to encourage and support slave property in a Territory excludes it practically just as effectually as if there was a positive constitutional pro- vision against it. Hence, I assert that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendly legislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a barren, worthless, useless right ; and if they are for it, they will support and encourage it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, If the people of a Territory want slavery, they will have it ; and if they do not want it, you cannot force it on them. And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon which our institutions rest. I am willing to take the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that august tri- bunal, without stopping to inquire whether I would have decided that way or not I have had many a decision made against me on questions of law which I did not like, but I was bound by them just as much as if I had had a hand in making them and approved them. Did you ever see a lawyer or a client lose his case that he approved the decision of the court ? They always think the decision unjust when it is given against them. In a government of laws, like ours, we must sustain the Constitution as our fathers made it, and main- tain the rights of the States as they are guaranteed under the Constitution ; and then we will have peace and harmony between the different States and sections of this glorious Union. FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON. September 18, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible. While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the qiiestion was asked me, I 164 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch aa they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of hav- ing the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recol- lect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at lai^e upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it ; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this : that I do not understand tliat there is any place whei'e an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature, — not in the Congress of the United States ; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing inyself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant hoiTor that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved to be very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of his speaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, as ^I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for hav- ing said what he did in regard to that matter. I was travelling at that time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days ; and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position whera I could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, upon two or three occa- sions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to tlie charge brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it ; that I did personally know Judge AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 Trumbull ; that I believed him to be a man of veracity ; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn from a set of facts, was true or false ; and as a conclusion of my own from that, I stated it as my belief, if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or three occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion. Judge Trum- bull spoke again before an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiate it. This speech was published at length ; and subsequently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In t)ie course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read : " Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the slanders/' I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been my purpose to discuss that matter at all. But inas- much as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the responsibility. I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters that por- tion of Judge TrumbulFs Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville in answer to it I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with the complete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now i*ead them, for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some comments upon them. Trumbuirs charge is in the following words : " Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a Constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot." I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to sub- stantiate this charge.^ It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon the floor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among the senators, in which conference it was determined to have an Enabling Act passed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this con- ference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have a provision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people after it should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted into the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of the constitution back for a vote of the people, — if, indeed, upon a mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to vote upon it. These are tlie general statements that he has made. I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which he attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbuirs. When you come to examine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point he makes is : " Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out, — is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them ^ See Tnimbuirs speech at the close of this debate. 166 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN against their will ? " His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the first place, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed without having such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am not certain, that in some instances, constitutions framed under such bills have been submitted to a vote of the people, with the law silent upon the subject ; but it does not appear that they once had their Enabling Acts framed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people, and then that they were stricken out when Congress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have been bills which never had the provision in, I do not question ; but when was that provision taken out of one that it was in ? More especially does this evidence tend to prove the proposition that Trum- bull advanced, when we remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almost simultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a con* ference among certain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed leaving that out Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it to be submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fair show of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for Kansas without giving the people any opportunity of voting upon it. But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this : " But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I only want to ask this question : Why did not Judge Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toombs bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken out, — a bill which goes by the name of Toombs, because he origi- nally brought it forward ? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out ? Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toombs bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were stricken out were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these words being stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I sup- pose to be a genuine copy of the Toombs bill, in which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to show they were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of the words, — whether these words which were stricken out really constituted a provision for sub- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGL^VS. 167 mitting the matter to a vote of the people, — as that is a matter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbuirs own argument. He says that the propo- sition is in these words : — *' That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution^ shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he says tliis was a provision for submitting the consti- tution to a vote of the people ; and his argument is this : " Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at the election for the adop- tion of the constitution, unless such an election was to be held ? " This is Trumbuirs argument Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but be stands up and says there was no such proposition in that bill for sub- mitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. He asks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be held for the adoption of the consti- tution. And he goes on to show that it is not any less a law because the pro- vision is put in that indirect shape than it would be if it was put directly. But I presume I have said enough to draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in a speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made would have to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thouglit so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now ? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply : That bill had been in the hands of a party to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the committee, at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed copy of the original Toombs bill. I have not the evidence on that point, except a sort of inference I draw from the general course of business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way of altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterward, when it was reported back, there was a dis- cussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in reading it hastily in the alteix'td form did not perceive all the bearings of the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist More than this, is it true that what Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did ? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it ? Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then per- ceive he was in the plot ? He also asks the question : Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment ? Why, I believe that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in con- nection with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor of the Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on this subject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did 168 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN bring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no pro- vision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the people of Kansas, to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, biU tie never noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him ; and if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it from blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touch the question of my crima It would be no relief to my neck that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that the bill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his (Judge Douglas's) hands, that it was missing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech he had subse- quently said the alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs. And Jud^e Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the bill not only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with another clause and another pro- vision in it, saying that " until the complete execution of this Act there shall be no election in said Territory," — which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provision for submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an affirmative one» in that it prevented the people from exer- cising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts his ground, — and I believe he uses the term that, " it being proven false, he has changed ground," — I call upon all of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not I say he did not shift his ground, but that he brought forward his original charge and the evidence to sus- tain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidenca He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent with his former testimony ; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his prop- osition. To illustrate : A man brings an accusation against another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and a third witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further testimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that last pro- vision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is true that that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has not said it was not Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken out He says : *' I am speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 169 somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only said that he originally put it in, — not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him in consultation with Toombs. Trumbull alleges, thei^fore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out That I take it is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another at all. The question is. What did he put it in for ? In the first place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for, — the provision which Trumbull ai'gued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people ? What did he take that out for ; and, having taken it out, what did he put this in for ? I say that in the run of things, it is not unlikely foi*ces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is that Judge Douglas put it in ; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless he denies that In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says : " He forges his evidence from beginning to end ; and by falsifying the record, he endeavors to bolster up his false chai-ge." Well, that is a pretty serious statement Trumbull forges his evidence from beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not true. What is a forgery ? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toombs bill, — the amendment offered by Toombs. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery ? That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to end ! That is the " beginning," we will say. Does Douglas say that is a forgery ? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examination upon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, and says that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery ? Does he say it in his general sweeping charge ? Does he say so now ? If he does not, then take this Toombs bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the one and not in the other ; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was taken out. But while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says there are in this original Toombs bill these words : " That the following propo- sitions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we 22 170 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN will open the paper here and see whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9, 1857 : — *' I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by those most in- telligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting it to the popular vote.'' Then Trumbull follows on : — " In speaking of this meeting again on the 2l8t December, 1857 [" Congressional Globe/' same vol., page 113], Senator Bigler said : — '' ' Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the confer- ence under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impres- sions, and with their submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : — " * " That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas." " ' The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of Juno, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to ; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words, " and ratified by the people at the election for the adoptioti of the constitution/* had been stricken out.' " Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in the " Congressional Globe " on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a forgery ? Does he say there is no such thing in the "Congressional Globe" ? What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from beginning to end ? So again he says in another place, that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 ("Congressional Globe," part I. page 15), stated: — " That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a hill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 171 Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and is recorded in the " Cougreasional Globe." Is ti a foigery ? la it there or not ? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. A voice : He will. Mr. Lincoln : Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives other quotatious, — another from Judge Douglas. He Bays:-~ " I will ask the eenator to show me an intimation, from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toomba bill, and in the Union, from any qnarter, that the constitution waa not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all aides of the chamber it wua so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielddl to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done, which ought iu fairness to have been done." Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. Does Judge Douglas say it is a forgery, and wan not true ? Trumbull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were engi- neering the bill, that it lacked that provision ; and then he goes ou to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this language : — "Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probably leoollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to the Toomba bill when pending that it did not provide for a aubraisaiou of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which ia to be found in the same volume of the ' Globe,' page 22, in which he says : — " ' That the bill was silent on thia subject was true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the conntitution would be sub- mitted to the people.' " Whether this atatoment is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- covery, you will determine." So I say, I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute thia, and yet maintain his position that Trumbull'a evidence " waa forged from begin- ning to end." I will remark that I have not got these " Congressional Globes " with me. They are large books, and difBcult to cany about, and if Judge Douglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from them there are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever he points out the forgery and says, " I declare that this particular thing which Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, — stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will find every i^uotatioii just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, How can Douglas call that ft forgery ? How can he make out that it ia a forgery ! What is a I'orgery ? It is the bringing forward something in writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect when it ia altogether untrue. If you come forwarijtritli IDJ note for one hundred dollars when I have never given Buoh a J"" «— -^-^ 172 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN forgery. If you come forward with a letter purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. How do you make this a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine ? If Judge Douglas does say these docu- ments and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right to do so ; but until he does it specifically we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look further into it, and I presume I can procure the certificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have no doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in m^ng his sweeping charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case, — if that is the way to get at the facts. I I'epeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will ccirefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wanted to deal with every one I meet, candidly and honestly. If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I will withc&aw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in general terms, "a forgery from beginning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I submit to all intelligent persons both friends of Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. The point upon Judge Douglas is this. The bill that went into his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to the people ; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out He says it was known that the bill was silent in this particular ; hut I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when you got it, for a submission of the con- stitution to the peopla And now, my direct question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was implied that the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, how could these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to strike them out ? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill ? I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it He took it out, and although he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a vote of the people, I ask. Why did you first put it int I ask him whether he took the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill ? If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for t It looks to us as if he had altered the bilL If it looks differently to him, — if he has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him — he can tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within three minutes of being out I presume it is expired now ; I therefore closa AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 173 SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen : I had supposed that we assembled here to-day for the purpose of a joint discussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself upon the political questions that now agitate the whole country. The rule of such discussions is, that the opening speaker shall touch upon all the points he intends to discuss, in order that his opponent, in reply, shall have the oppor- tunity of answering them. Let me ask you what questions of public policy, relating to the welfare of this State or the Union, has Mr. Lincoln discussed before you ? Mr. Lincoln simply contented himself at the outset by saying that he was not in favor of social and political equality between the white man and the negro, and did not desire the law so changed as to make the latter voters or eligible to office. I am glad that I have at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him upon this question of negro citizenship and eligibility to office, for I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this canvass commenced. I will now call your attention to the question which Mr. Lincoln has occupied his entire time in discussing. He spent his whole hour in retailing a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me. The circumstances out of which that charge was manufactured occurred prior to the last Presidential election, over two years ago. If the charge was true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, when I was discussing the questions of that day all over this State with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue ? He was then as silent as the gitive on the subject If that charge was true, the time to have brought it forward was the canvass of 1856, the year when the Toombs bill passed the Senate. When the facts were fresh in the public mind, when the Kansas question was the paramount question of the day, and when such a charge would have had a material bearing on the election, why did he and Lincoln remain silent then, knowing that such a charge could be made and proven if true ? Were they not false to you and false to the country in going through that entire campaign, concealing their knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell ? Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. Trumbull would not tell, for he says that it might be true, as I proved that it was at Jacksonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact of Trum- bull's being in the plot would not in any way relieve me. He illustrates this argument by supposing himself on trial for murder, and says that it would be no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial, another man was found to be a party to his crime. Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed it in order to escape the odium which would have fallen upon himself, I ask you whether you can believe him now when he turns State's evidence, and avows his own infamy in order to implicate me. I am amazed that Mr. Lincoln should now come forward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole hour in reading Mr. Trumbull's speech in support of it. Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a speech of his own instead of taking up his time reading Trumbull's speech at Alton ? I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his own account, or I should not have accepted the banter from him for a joint discussion. ["How about the charges?"] Do not trouble yourselves, I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I trust, as the Democrats listened patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not interrupt me when I am answering him. When Mr. Trumbull I'eturned from the East, the first thing he did when he landed at 174 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Chicago was to make a speech wholly devoted to assaults upon my public character and public action. Up to that time I had never alluded to his course in Congress, or to him directly or indirectly, and hence his assaults upon me were entirely without provocation and without excuse. Since then he has been travelling from one end of the State to the other, repeating his vile charge. I propose now to read it in his own language : — " Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for oppos- ing a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people any opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that the very men who traverse the country under banners proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that people." In answer to some one in the crowd who asked him a question, Trumbull said : — '* And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a constitution upon that people 1 I will satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat until he cannot deny it. And to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry enough. '' It is preposterous ; it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on, to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then* claim credit for it.^ That is the polite language Senator Trumbull applied to me, his colleague, when I was two hundred miles ofif. Why did he not speak out as boldly in the Senate of the United States, and cram the lie down my throat when I denied the charge, first made by Bigler, and made him take it back ? You all recollect how Bigler assaulted me when I was engaged in a hand-to-hand fight, resisting a scheme to force a constitution on the people of Kansas against their will. He then attacked me with this charge ; but I proved its utter falsity, nailed the slander to the counter, and made him take the back track. There is not an honest man in America who read that debate who will pre- tend that the charge is true. Trumbull was then present in the Senate, face to face with me ; and why did he not then rise and repeat the charge, and say he would cram the lie down my throat ? I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a lie. He knew that Toombs denied that there ever was a clause in the bill he brought forward, calling for and requiring a submission of the Kansas Constitution to the people. I will tell you what the facts of the case were. I introduced a bill to authorize the people of Kansas to form a consti- tution, and come into the Union as a State whenever they should have the requisite population for a member of Congress, and Mr. Toombs proposed a substitute, authorizing the people of Kansas, with their then population of only 25,000, to form a constitution, and coroe in at once. The question at issue was, whether we would admit Kansas with a population of 25,000, or, make her wait until she had the ratio entitling her to a representative in Con- gress, which was 93,420. That was the point of dispute in the Committee of Territories, to which both my bill and Mr. Toombs's substitute had been referred. I was overruled by a majority of the committee, my proposition rejected, and Mr. Toombs's proposition to admit Kansas then, with her popu- lation of 25,000, adopted. Accordingly, a bill to carry out his idea of immedi- ate admission was reported as a substitute for mine : the only points at issue *--'*. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 176 being, as I have already said, the question of population, aud the adoption of safeguards against frauds at the election. Trumbull knew this, — the whole Senate knew it, — and hence he was silent at that time. He waited until I became engaged in this canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln's Abolitionism and negro equality doctrines, that I was driving Lincoln to the wall, and white men would not support his rank Abolitionism, he came back from the East and trumped up a system of charges against me, hoping that I would be compelled to occupy my entire time in defending myself, so that I would not be able to show up the enormity of the principles of the Abolition- ists. Now, the only reason, and the true reason, why Mr. Lincoln has occu- pied the whole of his first hour in this issue between Trumbull and myself, is, to conceal from this vast audience the real questions which divide the two great parties. I am not going to allow them to waste much of my time with these per- sonal matters. I have lived in this State twenty-five years, most of that time have been in public life, and my record is open to you all. If that record is not enough to vindicate me from these petty, malicious assaults, I despise ever to be elected to office by slandering my opponents and traducing other men. Mr. Lincoln asks you to elect him to the United States Senate to-day solely because he and Trumbull can slander me. Has he given any other reason ? Has he avowed what he was desirous to do in Congress on any one question ? He desires to ride into office, not upon his own merits, not upon the merits and soundness of bis principles, but upon his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me. I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of the introduction of the Toombs bill, and after its introduction, there had never been an Act of Con- gress for the admission of a new State which contained a clause requiring its constitution to be submitted to the people. Tlie general rule made the law silent on the subject, taking it for granted that the people would demand and compel a popular vote on tlie ratification of their constitution. Such was the general rule under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Polk, under the Whig Presidents and the Democratic Presidents, from the beginning of the government down, and nobody dreamed that an effort would ever be made to abuse the power thus confided to the people of a Territory. For this reason our attention was not called to the fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the Toombs bill compelling submission, but it was taken for granted that the constitution would be submitted to the people whether the law compelled it or not Now, I will read from the report by me as Chairman of the Committee on Territories at the time I reported back the Toombs substitute to the Senate. It contained several things which I had voted against in committee, but bad been overruled by a majority of the members, and it was my duty as Chair- man of the Committee to report the bill back as it was agreed upon by them. The main point upon which I had been overruled was the question of popu- lation. In my report accompanying the Toombs bill, I said : — ^' In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a constitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or iDtimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those im- posed by the Constitution of the United States." 176 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN There you find that we took it for granted that the constitution was to be submitted to the people, whether the bill was silent on the subject or not. Suppose I had reported it so, following the example of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce, would that fact have been evidence of a conspiracy to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will ? If the charge which Mr. Lincoln makes be true against me, it is true against Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and every Whig President, as well as every Democratic President, and against Henry Clay, who, in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated bills similar to the one I reported, no one of them con- taining a clause compelling the submission of the constitution to the people. Are Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those eminent men from the beginning of the government down to the present day, that the absence of a provision compelling submission, in the various bills passed by them, authorizing the people of Territories to form State constitutions, is evidence of a corrupt design on their part to force a constitution upon an unwilling people ? I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell you that there is a conspiracy to carry this election for the Black Republicans by slander, and not by fair means. Mr. Lincoln's speech this day is conclusive evidence of the fact. He has devoted his entire time to an issue between Mr. Trumbull and myself, and has not uttered a word about the politics of the day. Are you going to elect Mr. Trumbull's colleague upon an issue between Mr. Trumbull and me ? I thought I was running against Abraham Lincoln, that he claimed to be my opponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the public questions of the day with him, and was discussing these questions with me ; but it turns out that his only hope is to ride into office on Trumbull's back, who will carry him by falsehood. Permit me to pursue this subject a little further. An examination of the record proves that Trumbull's charge — that the Toombs bill originally con- tained a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people — is false. The printed copy of the bill which Mr. Lincoln held up before you, and which he pretends contains such a clause, merely contains a clause requiring a submission of the land grant, and there is no clause in it requiring a submission of the constitution. Mr. Lincoln cannot find such a clause in it. My report shows that we took it for granted that the people would require a submission of the constitution, and secure it for themselves. There never was a clause in the Toombs bill requiring the constitution to be submitted ; Trumbull knew it at the time, and his speech made on the night of its pas- sage discloses the fact that he knew it was silent on the subject. Lincoln pretends, and tells you, that Trumbull has not changed his evidence in sup- port of bis charge since he made his speech in Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago " Times " took up Trumbull's Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Congress, and proved that speech to be false in its charge that the original Toombs bill required a submission of the constitution to the people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught, and his falsehood exposed, and he went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the Convention from submitting the constitution to the people, and quoted what he pretended was the clause. Now, has not Mr. Trumbull entirely changed the' evidence on which he bases his charge ? The clause which he quoted in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 his Alton speech (which he has published and circulated broadcast over the State) as having been put into the Toombs bill by me, is in the following words : " And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.** Trumbull says that the object of that amendment was to prevent the Con- vention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the people. Now, I will show you that when Trumbull made that statement at Alton he knew it to be untrue. I read from Trumbull's speech in the Senate on tlie Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He then said : — '* There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about submitting the coustitution, which is to be formnd, to the people for their sanction or rejection. Perhaps the Convention will have the right to submit it, if it should tliink proper, but it is certainly not compelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bilL" Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its passage in the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of submission, and that there was nothing in the bill one way or the other on it In his Alton speech he says there was a clause in the bill preventing its submission to the people, and that I had it voted in as an amendment. Thus I convict him of false- hood and slander by quoting from him, on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the United States, his own speech, made on the night of July 2, 1856, and reported in the " Congressional Globe '* for the first session of the thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 33. What will you think of a man who makes a false charge, and falsifies the records to prove it ? I will now show you that the clause which Trumbull says was put in the bill on my motion was never put in at all by me, but was stricken out on my motion, and another substi- tuted in its place. I call your attention to the same volume of the " Con- gressional Globe " to which I have already referred, page 795, where you will find the following report of the proceedings of the Senate : — *' Mr. Douglas : I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on Terri- tories. On page 8, section 11, strike out the words * until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory/ and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that Trum- bull says I put in. The Committee on Territories overruled me in committee, and put the clause in ; but as soon as I got the bill back into the Senate, I moved to strike it out, and put another clause in its place. On the same page you will find that my amendment was agreed to unanimously. I then ofiTered another amendment, recognizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same volume. I will read it : — ** Mr. Douglas : I have another amendment to offnr from the Committee, to fol- low the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads now : ' And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it should be modified in this way : ' And to avoid conflict in the complete execution of this Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint the day in the event that there should be a failure to come into the Union." The amendment was unanimously agreed to, — clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as many elections as 23 178 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN they saw proper in the execution of the Act. Trumbull concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause he quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and the other fact that this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I incorporated into the bill a clause, preventing submission, in the face of the fact, that, on my motion, the bill was so amended before it passed as to recognize in express words the right and duty of submission. On tliis record that I have produced before you, I repeat my chaise that Trumbull did falsify the public records of the country, in order to make his charge against me, and I tell Mr. Abraham Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has this day indorsed Mr. Trumbull's veracity after he had my word for it that that veracity was proved to be violated and forfeited by the public records. It will not do for Mr. Lincoln, in parading his calumnies against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and the odium and responsibility which justly attaches to such calumnies. I tell him that I am as ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. I regret the necessity of occupying my time with these petty personal matters. It is unbecoming the dignity of a canvass for an office of the character for which we are candidates. \Vhen I commenced the canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kind- ness as an old friend ; I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished char- acter, against whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these complimentary remarks about him in my successive speeches, until he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me. If there is anything personally disagreeable, uncourteous, or disreputable in these personalities, the sole responsibility rests on Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trumbull, and their backers. I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an ofif-set to his determination of willingness to take back anything that is incor- rect, and to correct any false statement he may have made. He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan^ and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a conspiracy to establish slavery all over this country. I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth and answer it I told him, " Mr. Ijncoln, I know what you are after, — you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles which the Abolition party — whose candidate you are — have proclaimed to the world." But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I ccdled his attention to the fact ' that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterwards, and hence that it was impossible there could have been any such conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer ? Did he take it back like an honest man, and say that he had been mistaken ? No ; he repeated the charge, and said, that although there was no such case pending that year, there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved, that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell ; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. Dt*ed Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 Massacliusetts, and his wife; and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court Dr. Chaflfee and his wife executed a deed emanci- pating him, and put that deed on record. It was a matter of public i-ecord, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's and a leading man of his party, while the defence was conducted by Abolition lawyers, — and thus the Abolitionists managed both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his chaise of conspiracy. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, Presi- dent Buchanan, and myself is. Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced. The history of this country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the Court of St. James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan when the public records prove it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are con- cerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. My friends, you see that the object clearly is to conduct the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down with charges that are proven to be false by the public records of the country. I am willing to throw open my whole public and private life to the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to investigate it. Hav- ing resided among you twenty-five years, during nearly the whole of which time a public man, exposed to more assaults, perhaps more abuse, than any man living of my age, or who ever did live, and having survived it all and still commanded your confidence, I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and my public conduct without making any more defence against these assaults. Fellow-Citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the leading poli- tical topics which now agitate the country. I have no charges to make against Mr. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none against any man who is a candidate, except in repelling their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad character, I leave you to find it out ; if his votes in the past are not satis- factory, I leave others to ascertain the fact ; if his course on the Mexican war was not in accordance with your notions of patriotism and fidelity to our own country as against a public enemy, I leave you to ascertain the fact. I have no assaults to make upon him, except to trace his course on the questions that now divide the country and engross so much of the people's attention. You know that prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great poli- tical parties, one the Whig, the other the Democratic. I, as a Democrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in public discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice to bear testimony that during all that period I fought you Whigs like a man on every question that separated the two parties. I had the highest respect for Henry Clay as a gal- lant party leader, as an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright orna- ments of this country ; but I conscientiously believed that the Democratic 180 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN party was right on the questions which separated the Democrats from the Whigs. The man does not live who can say that I ever personally assailed Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, or any one of the leaders of that great party, whilst I combated with all my energy the measures they advocated. What did we differ about in those days ? Did Whigs and Democrats diflPer about this slavery question ? On the contrary, did we not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of Compromise measui*es which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fillmore approved and made the law of the land by his signature ? While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we dififered about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, the sub- treasury, and other questions of that description. Now, let me ask you which one of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great parties ? Every one of those questions which divided Whigs and Democrats has passed away, the country has outgrown them, they have passed into history. Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other questions, because they no longer continue living issue& What, then, has taken the place of those questions about which we once differed ? The slavery question has now become the leading and controlling issue ; that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and Democrats united, has now become the lead- ing issue between the National Democracy on the one side, and the Bepublicau, or Abolition, party on the other. • Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest of 1850, when this coun- try was agitated from its centre to its circumference by the slavery agitation. All eyes in this nation were then turned to the three grieat lights that survived the days of the Revolution. They looked to Clay, then in retirement at Ash- land, and to Webster and Cass, in the United States Senate. Clay had retired to Ashland, having, as he supposed, performed his mission on earth, and was preparing himself for a better sphere of existence in another world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh, and grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion, and he aroused and came forth and resumed his seat in the Senate, that great theatre of his great deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among us he became the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Democrats. For nine months we each assembled, each day, in the council- chamber. Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand, and Webster upon his left, and the Democrats and Whigs gathered around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common, patriotic sentiment, to devise means and measures by which we could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern Abolitionists and Southern disunionists. We did devise those means. Clay brought them forward, Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, and they gave peace and quiet to the country. Those Compromise measures of 1850 were founded upon the great fundamental principle that the people of each Stat« and each Territory ought to be left free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution. I will ask every old line Democrat and every old line Whig within the hearing of my voice if I have not truly stated the issues as they then presented tliemselves to the coun- try. You recollect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of indignation, and cried for vengeance and the destruction of Democrats and Whigs both, who supported those Compromise measures of 1850. When I returned home to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infuriated against the authors of those great measures. Being the only man in that city who was held responsible for affirmative votes on all those measures, I came forward and AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLA& 181 addressed the assembled inhabitants, defended each and every one of Clay's Compromise measures as they passed the Senate and the House, and were ap- proved by President Fillmore. Previous to that time, the city council had passed resolutions nullifying the Act of Congress, and instructing the police to withhold all assistance from its execution ; but the people of Chicago listened to my defence, and, like candid, frank, conscientious men, when they became convinced that they had done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us who had supported those measures, they repealed their nullifying resolutions, and declared that the laws should be executed and the supremacy of the Con- stitution maintained. Let it always be recorded in history to the immortal honor of the people of Cliicago that they returned to their duty when they found that they were wrong, and did justice to those whom they had blamed and abused unjustly. When the Legislature of this State assembled that year, they proceeded to pass resolutions approving the Compromise measures of 1850. When the Whig party assembled in 1852 at Baltimore in National Convention for the last time, to nominate Scott for the Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Compromise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig would stand, and by which he would regulate his future conduct When the Democratic party assembled at the same place one month after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing that we would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal article in the Democratic faith. Thus you see that in 1852 all the old Whigs and all the old Democrats stood on a common plank so far as this slavery question was concerned, differing on other questions. Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so many of you Whigs have wandered from the true path marked out by Clay, and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster ? How is it that so many old line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of their party, and joined with Abolitionism and Free-soilism to overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the platfonn of the old Whigs ? You cannot deny that since 1854 there has been a great revolution on this one question. How has it been brought about ? I answer, that no sooner was the sod grown green over the grave of the immortal Clay, no sooner was the rose planted on the tomb of the god-like Webster, than many of the leaders of the Whig party, such as Seward of New York and his followers, led off and attempted to Abolitionize the Whig party, and transfer all your old Whigs, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Seizing hold of the temporary excitement produced in this country by the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the disappointed politicians in the Demo- cratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the Whig party, and endeavored to form a new party, composed of all the Al)olitionists, of Aboli- tionized Democrats and Abolitionized Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. And who led that crusade against National principles in this State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull on behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by which they would Abolitionize the two great parties in this State, on condition that Lincoln should be sent to the United States Senate in place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the Belleville District until I would be accommo- dating enough eitlier to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to go to the Senate in my place. You all remember that during the year 1854 these two worthy gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull, one an old line Whig and the other an old line Democrat, were hunting in partnerahip to elect a 182 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOljil??' * Legislature against the Democratic party. I canvassed the State that year from the time I returned home until the election came off, and spoke in every county that I could reach during that period. In the northern pait of the State I found Lincoln's ally, in the person of Fred Douglass^ the negro, preaching Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same princi- ples down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advooeting the elec- tion of members to the Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln's and Fred Douglass's friends. I witnessed an effort made at Ghip^go by Lincoln's then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglaas, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious Oeneral Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State and speaking in behalf of Lincoln. Lincoln knows that when we were at Freeport in joint discussion there was a distinguished colored friend of his there then who was on the stump for him, and who made a speech there the night before we spoke, and another the night after, a short distance from Free- port, in favor of Lincoln ; and in order to show how much interest the colored brethren felt in tlie success of their brother Abe, I have with me here, and would read it if it would not occupy too much of my time, a speech made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., a short time since, to a large Conven- tion in which^he conjures all the friends of negro equality and negro citizenship to rally as one man around Abraham Lincoln, the perfect embodiment of their principles, and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. Thus you find that this liepublican party in the northern part of the State had colored gentle- men for their advocates in 1854, in company with Lincoln and Trumbull, as they have now. When, in October, 1854, 1 went down to Springfield to attend the State Fair, I found the leaders of this party all assembled together under the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was Black Republicans up north, and anti-Nebraska at Springfield. I found Lovejoy, a high-priest of Aboli- tionism, and Lincoln, one of the leaders who was towing the old line Whigs into the Abolition camp, and Trumbull, Sidney Breese, and Governor Reynolds, all making speeches against the Democratic party and myself, at the same place and in the same cause. The same men who are now fighting the Demo- cratic party and the regular Democratic nominees in this State were fighting us then. They did not then acknowledge that they had become Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now. Breese, Dougherty, and Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti-Nebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy under the pretence that they are Sivum pure Demo- crats, saying that they are authorized to have every office-liolder in Illinois beheaded who prefers the election of Douglas to that of Lincoln, or the success of the Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members of Congress, State officers, members of the Legislature, or any office in the State. They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing now, owning different names and different principles in different localities, but having a common object in view, viz. : The defeat of all men holding National principles in opposition to this sectional Abolition party. They carried the Legislature in 1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they proceeded to elect a United States Senator, all voting for Lincoln, with one or two exceptions, which excep- tions prevented them from quite electing him. And why should they not elect him ? Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln should have Shields's place ? Had not the Abolitionists agreed to it ? Was it not the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln agreed to Abolitionize the old Whigs that he should AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 be senator ? Still, Trumbull, having control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, would not allow them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept him for some time within one or two votes of an election, until he worried out Lincoln's friends, and compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull, in violation of the bargain. I desire to read you a piece of testimony in con- firmation of the notoriously public facts which I have stated to you. Colonel James H. Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the confi- dential personal and political friend and manager of Mr. liincoln. Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Republican, or Abolition, party for Congress against the gallant Major Thos. L. Harris, in the Springfield District, and is making speeches for Lincoln and against me. I will read you the testimony of Matheny about this bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull when they undertook to Abolitionize Whigs and Democrats only four years ago. Matheny, being mad at Trumbull for having played a Yankee trick on Lincoln, exposed the bargain in a public speech two years ago, and I will read the published report of that speech, the con-ectness of which Mr. Lincoln will not deny : — ''The WhigSy Abolitionists, Know-Nothiugs, and renegade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose of carrying this State against the Democracy on this plan : 1st, that they would all combine and elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carr}' his district for the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that body against the Democrats ; 2d, that when the Legislature should meet, the officers of that body, such as Speaker, clerks, doorkeepers, etc., would be given to the Abolitionists ; and, 3d, that the Whigs were to have the United States senator. That, accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature ; and when it convened, the Abolitionists got all the officers of that body, and thus far the ' bond ' was fairly executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract having already secured to themselves all that was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln ; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pleading all that was required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate ; and thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues." Lincoln's confidential friend Matheny thought that Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired with such rogues as Trumbull and the Abolitionists. I would like to know whether Lincoln had as high opinion of Trumbuirs veracity when the latter agreed to support him for the Senate, and then cheated him as he does now, when Trumbull comes forward and makes charges against me. You could not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by Lincoln, by Matheny, or by any of Lincoln's friends. They charged every- where that Trumbull had cheated them out of the bargain, and Lincoln found sure enough that it was a bad bargain to contract and conspire with rogues. And now I will explain to you what has been a mystery all over the State and Union, — the reason why Lincoln was nominated for the United States Senate by the Black Republican Convention. You know it has never been usual for any party, or any convention, to nominate a candidate for United States senator. Probably this was the first time that such a thing was ever done. The Black Republican Convention had not been called for that pur- pose, but to nominate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many disgusted when Lincoln was nominated. Archie Williams thought he was entitled to it. Browning knew that he deserved it, Wentworth was certain that 184 DEBATES BETWEEN ABIIAHAM LINCOLN he would get it, Peck had hopes, Judd felt sure that he was the man, and Palmer had claims and had made arrangements to secure it; but, to their utter amazement, Lincoln was nominated by the Convention, and not only that, but he received the nomination unanimously, by a resolution declaring that Abraham Lincoln was " the first, last, and only choice " of the Republican party. How did this occur? Why, because they could not get Lincoln's friends to make another bargain with " rogues," unless the whole party would come up as one man and pledge their honor that they would stand by Lincoln first, last, and all the time, and that he should not be cheated by Lovejoy this time, as he was by Trumbull before. Thus, by passing this resolution^ the Abolitionists are aU for him, Lovejoy and Farnsworth are canvassing for him, Giddings is ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated this tim& He would not go into the arrangement until he got their bond for it, and Trumbull is compelled now to take the stump, get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try and elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln's friends quiet about the bargain in which Trumbull cheated them four years ago. You see, now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond of each other. They have entered into a conspiracy to break me down by these assaults on my public character, in order to draw my attention from a fair exposure of the mode in which they attempted to Abolitionize the old Whig and the old Democratic parties and lead them captive into the Abolition camp. Do you not all remember that Lincoln went around here four years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as good a Whig as he ever was ; and that Trumbull went all over the State making pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted hand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended to be, and that never would he desert the Democratic party. He got your votes to elect an Abolition Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained Abolitionists for ofiSce, State and National. Now, the same game is attempted to be played over again. Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of the old Whigs and old Demo- crats, and carried them into the Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in. Giddings found the converts so numer- ous that he had to have assistance, and he sent for John P. Hale, N. P. Banks, Chase, and other Abolitionists, and they came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lincoln, Trumbull, Breese, Reynolds, and Dougherty could capture them and bring them within the Abolition clutch. Gentlemen, they are now around, making the same kind of speeches. Trumbull was down in Monroe County the other day, assailing me, and making a speech in favor of Lincoln ; and I will show you under what notice his meeting was called. You see these people are Black Eepublicans or Abolitionists up north, while at Springfield to-day they dare not call their Convention " Republican," but are obliged to say " a Convention of all men opposed to the Democratic party ; " and in Monroe County and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings as follows : — A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at Waterloo on Monday, September 12th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, lion. John Baker, and others will address the people upon the different political topics of the day. Members of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 185 all parties are cordially invited to be present, and hear and determine for them - seWes. September 9, 1858. The Freb DeMOORAOT. Did you ever before hear of this new party, called the '*Free Democracy"? What object have these Black Bepublicans in changing their name in every county 7 They have one name in the north, another in the centre, and another in the soutlL When I used to practise law before my distinguished judicial friend, whom I recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was charged with hoi*se-stealing, and the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson County, another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, we thought that the fact of his changing bis name so often to avoid detection was pretty strong evidence of his guilt, I would like to know why it is that this great Free-soil Abolition party is not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the State ? If this party believes that its course is just, why does it not avow the same principles in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West, wherever the American Hag waves over American soil? A voice : The party does not call itself Black Republican in the North. Mr. Douglas : Sir, if you will get a copy of the paper published at Wau- kegan, fifty miles from Chicago, which advocates the election of Mr. Lincoln, and has his name flying at its mast-head, you will find that it declares that "this paper is devoted to the cause '* of Black Hepublicanism. I had a copy of it, and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles are as different in the two sections of the State as is their name. I am sorry that I have mislaid it and have not got it here. Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the centre they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost white. Why, I admired many of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln's speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them with the speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the northern part of the State. Down here he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more Slave States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery. In the north, you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloomington District, Famsworth, their candidate in the Chicago District, and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena District, all declaring that liever will they consent, under any circumstances, to admit another Slave State, even if the people want it Thus, while they avow one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely different set down here. And here let me recall to Mr. Lincoln the scriptural quotation which he has applied to the Federal Government, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in one half of the State it advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other half? I am told that I have but eight minutes more. I would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer, but I will make the best use I can of the remaining eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first remarks that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro with the white man. Every- where up north he has declared that he was not in favor of the social and political equality of the negro, but he would not say whether or not he was 24 186 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN opposed to negroea voting and negro citizenship. I want to know whether he is for or against negro citizenship. He declared his utter opposition to the Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that the court had decided that it was not possible for a negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the United States. If he is opposed to the Dred Scott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of conferring the right and privilege of citizenship upon the negro 1 I have been trying to get an answer from him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, and I will show you why. In every speech he made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal, and insisted that the phrase '' all men " included the negro as well as the white man, and that the equality rested upon divine law. Here is what he said on that point : — ^ I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop 1 If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another say it does not mean some other man 1 If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we find it and tear it out.^ Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under divine law ; and if he believes so, it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on ah equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negix> is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the Constitution of the United States. I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, " that a negro descended from African parents^ who was imported into this country as a slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be." I say that this government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their poster- « ity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was bom here. It does not depend upon the place a negro's parents were bom, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belong- ing to a race incapable of self-government, and for that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men. My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argument further, as I might have done, but for the fact that Mr. Lincoln compelled me to occupy a portion of my time in repelling those gross slanders and false- hoods that Trumbull has invented against me and put in circulation. In conclusion, let me ask you why should this government be divided by a geographical line, — arraying all men North in one great hostile party against all men South ? Mr. Lincoln tells you, in his speech at Springfield, " that a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that this Government, divided into Free and Slave States, cannot endure permanently ; that they must either be all free or all slave ; all one thing or all the other." Why cannot this govern- ment endure, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it? When this government was established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of Free States and Slave States, bound together by one common Constitution. We have existed and prospered from that day to this thus divided, and have increased with a rapidity never before equalled, in wealth. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 the extension of territoiy, and all the elements of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the face of the globe. Why can we not thus continue to prosper ? We can, if we will live up to and execute the gov- ernment upon those principles upon which our fathers established it During the whole period of our existence, Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than have ever been conferred upon any other. MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. Fellow-Citizens : It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit others, for the want of time. Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned, in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen ; and without saying what was my ground of com- plaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint. Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen, under the Constitution of the United States, if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches noith, and my speeches south ; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare him to paint out any difference between my speeches north and south. While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard to the latter por- tion of the Judge's speech, whicli was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said I entertained the belief that this government would not endure, half slave and half free. I have said so, and I did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps would require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons in detail ; but let me ask you a few ques- tions. Have we ever had any peace on this slavery question ? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept in the position it now occupies ? How are 188 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN we ever to have peace upon it ? That is au important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get the people to do that ? They have been wrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled *' forever** as both the great political parties declared in their National Conventions. That " forever " turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas him^lf reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end ? He introduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton Constitu- tion, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation, — one of these " final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union ? Has she formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under ? Is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory ? Has the voting down of that constitution put an end to all the trouble ? Is that more likely to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation ? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foi'etell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska- Kansas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world ; and we can just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the eud of this agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's sur- face, this vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back .upon the basis where our fathers placed it ; no way but to keep it out of our new Territories, — to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. 'Then the public mind unit rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States ; cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong ; regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least ; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 189 have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on this point. Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854 : Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it ; and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record, because there was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me, I would not be likely to indorse his veracity ; but I am ready to indorse his veracity because neither in that thing, nor in any otJier, in all the years that I have knovm Lyman Truvibull, have I knovm him to fail of hie word or tdl a faheliood, large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse Lyman Trumbull Mr. James Brown {Douglas Post-Master) : What does Ford's History say about him ? Mr. Lincoln : Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My own recollection is, that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse of Jvdge Douglas, I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. Judge Douglas complains, at considerable length, about a disposition on the part of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of deal- ing illiberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposed myself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. Judge Douglas, in a general way, without putting it in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the Mexican war. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is more than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself, because he says we bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, that in regard to the Mexican war story, the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was a lie. [Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward, and said: — ] I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin, except to present his face and tell you that lie personally knows it to he a lie ! He was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and he [Ficklin] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indoi-sement, and voted against it ; but I never voted against the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked, by way of com- pensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, 7 r/ave all the votes tltat Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps mare. 190 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ' Mr. FiCKLiN : My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter. Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican war, my recollection is that when Ashman's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachu- setts, in which he declared that the Mexican war was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by the President, — my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution. Mr. Lincoln : That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their coun- try. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the Chicago " Times," the Springfield " Register " |T>ouglas oigan] reminded the " Times " that the charge really applied to John Henry ; and I do know that John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of a set-ofT to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this charge before J said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this forward .at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face ; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people making charges against him only ttoo years old ! The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon this charge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my open- ing speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when Judge Douglas was speaking at places where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge TrumbulVs veracity and intelligence ; and my own opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had stated to be trua This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without saying anything more on the subject for weeks, — perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas, in the plenitude of his power, is not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he comes out there and uses this language : " He should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that Lincoln, having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders." What was Lincoln to do ? Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility ? I ask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I ? Here I meet him face to face^ and say I am ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. Having done so, I ask the attention of this audience to the question whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it ? You all heard me call upon him to say which of tliese jrieces of evidence was a forgery f Does he say that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery ? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery ? Or what is presented as a transcript from the " Globe " of the quotations from Bigler's speech, is a forgery ? Does he say the quotations from his own speech are forgeries ? Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech is a forgery ? AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 191 [" He did n't deny one of them/'] / would then like to know how it conies abmit that when each piex€ of a story is true, the whole story turtis out false f I take it these people have some sense ; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is play- ing cuttle-fish, — a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing the cuttle-fish ? Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of Judge Douglas's speech at Jacksonville ; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces of testimony, eveiy one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown to be such. Not one of them has he shoum to be a forgeiy. Then I ask the original question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is it possible that the wlwle is a falsehood? In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, what was his answer ? He conies here and reads from the " Congressional Globe " to show that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in ; and it is no answer to the charge to say he afterward took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you that by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that assertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say that Douglas struck it out. Sup- pose that were the case, does it answer Trumbull ? I assert that you [point- ing to an individual] are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas's argument Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a Constitution to be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny that fact ? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill ? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that ? He does not, and I have the right to repeat the question, — Why Judge Douglas took it out f Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas bill should have a clause in it not to have the consti- tution formed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say that Douglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yet it looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutual under- standing after the conference ; and while we do not know that it was abso- lutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it was done, to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account, refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then, but since, that these alterations and modifications in the bill had been made by him, in considtation with Toombs, the originator of the 192 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN bill. He tells us the same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill in Committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remem- ber while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of the Committee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular tJu alterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation with Toombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, and not by the Committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact question ? What is the reason he will not tell you anything about how it was made, BY whom it was made, or that he remembers it being made at all ? Why does he stand playing upon the mean- ing of words, and quibbling around the edges of the evidence ? If he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I have a right to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering that bill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, witho^U its being submitted to a vote of the people. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving a better rec^son for the facts that happened, than he has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he does that, — untU he gives a better or more plausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case, — / suggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells hiiaself up, takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in Trumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has only arrayed the evidence, and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull'sVord. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course of reasoning, Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you imdertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar ? They tell me that my time is out, and therefore I close. Extract prom Mr. Trumbull's Speech made at Alton, referred to bt Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douglas, made at Beards- town, and reported in the '* Missouri Eepublican." This extract has reference to a statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I charged that an agreement had been entered into by the very persons now claiming credit for opposing a cx)nstitution not submitted to the people, to have a constitution formed and put in force without giv- ing the people of Kansas an opportunity to pass upon it. Without meeting this charge, which I substantiated by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to have said : — " For when this charge was once made in a much milder form, in the Senate of the United States, I did brand it as a lie in the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, without daring to say it was true. I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered it at Chicago ; and yet he says he is going to cram the lie down his throat until he should cry enough. The miserable, craven-hearted wretch ! he would rather have both ears cut off than to use that lan- guage in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the principles to which they are committed. I shall not allow much of my time in this canvass to be occupied by these personal assaults : I have none to make on Mr. Lincoln ; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull ; I have none to make AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 198 on any other political opponent If I cannot stand on my own public record, on my own private and public character as history will record^it, I will not attempt to rise by traducing the character of other men. I will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the course they have pursued against me. I have no charges to make against them." This is a singular statement, taken altogether. After indulging in language which would disgrace a loafer in the filthiest purlieus of a fish-market, he winds up by saying that he will not make a blackguard of himself, that he has no charges to make against me. So I suppose he considers that to say of another that he knew a thing to be false when he utttered it, that he was a '^ miserable, craven-hearted wretch,'^ does not amount to a personal assault, and does not make a man a black- guard. A discriminating public will judge of that for themselves ; but as he says he has '' no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," I suppose politeness requires I should believe him. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have the audacity to again read the record upon him, and prove and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth of every word I uttered at Chicago. You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to determine whether I do this. My colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. By that he shall be tried ; and if he had been able to discriminate between the exposure of a public act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he would have discovered that there was nothing personal in my Chicago remarks, unless the condemnation of himself by his own public record is personal ; and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading it after it was made. As an individual, I care very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to do, and if they condemn, disgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has only himself, not me, to blame. Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot This is as susceptible of proof by the record as is the fact that the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress. On the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be printed, and, with the original bill and other amendments, recommended to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman. This amendment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a copy of which I have here present, provided for the appointment of commissioners who were to take a census of Kansas, divide the Territory into election districts, and superin- tend the election of delegates to form a constitution, and contains a clause in the 18th section which I will read to you, requiring the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for adoption. It reads as follows : — " That the following propositions bo and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or re- jection, which, if accepted by the Convention, and ratified by the people at the eleo- tion for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States, and npon the said State of Kansas," etc. It has been contended by some of the newspaper press that this section did not require the constitution which should be formed to be submitted to the people for approval, and that it was only the land propositions which were to be submitted. You will observe the language is that the propositions are to be ** ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution." Would it have been pos- sible to ratify the land propositions " at the election for the adoption of the constitu- tion," unless such an election was to be heldl When one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the doing of which 26 194 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN is made dependent upon and cannot be performed without the doing of some other thinp;, is not that other thing just as much required by the contract or law as the iirstl It matters not in what part of the Act, nor in what phraseology the intention of the Legislature is expressed, so you can clearly ascertain what it is ; and whenever that intention is ascertained from an examination of the language used, such inten- tion is part of and a requirement of the law. Can any candid, fair-minded man read the section I have quoted, and say that the intention to have the constitution which should be formed submitted to the people for their adoption^ is not clearly expressed f In my judgment, there can be no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so plain as this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally introduced, did require a submission of the constitution to the people. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the Committee of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back by him on the 30th of June, with the words, *' And ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution," stricken out. I have here a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas, to substantiate the statement I make. Various other alterations were also made in the bill, to which I shall presently have occasion to call attention. There was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a submission of the constitution to the people than the one I have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas, requiring a submission. I will now introduce a witness whose testimony cannot be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been one of the conspirators and privy to the fact about which he testifies. Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate, and to the propriety of submitting the consti- tution which should be formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 9th, 1857. I read from part 1, ** Congres- sional Globe" of last session, paragraph 21 :»- " I was present when that subject was discussed by senators, before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed whether the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intelligent on the subject that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that there should be no such provision in the Toombs bill ; and it is my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that that Convention would make a constitution and send it here, without submitting it to the popular vote." In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 ("Congressional Globe," same volume, page 113), Senator Bigler said : — '' Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollection was clear that I left the confer- ence under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular election, and that for delegates to the Convention. This impression was the stronger, because I thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aver- sion ; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their submission I shall be content I have before me the bill reported by the Senator from Illinois, on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : — " ' That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and upon the said State of Kansas.' ..^■ - ■■^ ^_^ AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 195 " The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same section, word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the conference referred to ; but, sir, wlien the Senator from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the Convention that the constitution should be approved by the people. The words ' and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution ' had been stricken out." I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to force a constitution upon Kansas without allowing the people to vote directly upon it I shall attend to that branch of the subject by and by. My object now is to prove the existence of the plot, what tlie design was, and I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts: — The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the calling of a Convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and providing that the constitu- tion should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an amendment to this bill, pro- posed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same requirement ; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Territories ; a consultation of senators to determine whether it was advisable to have the constitution submitted for ratification ; the determina- tion that it was not advisable ; and a report of the bill back to the Senate next morn- ing, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out. Could evidence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by somebody, to have a constitution adopted without submitting it to the people ) Now, for the other part of the charge, that Judge Douglas was in this plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly is not material to my purpose. The charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have a constitution formed and put into operation, without affording the people an opportunity to pass upon it. The first evidence to sustain the cliurge is the fact that he reported back the Toombs amend- ment, with the clause providing for the submission stricken out, — this in connec- tion with his speech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 (^'Congressional Globe," part 1, page 14), wherein he stated: — " That during the last Congress 1 [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from the Com- mittee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for themselves. Subsequently the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate." This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a constitution put in force without submitting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. Ko man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his present denial, and the only charitable conclusion would be that he was being used by others without knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the benefit of even this excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a govern- ment in operation without submitting the constitution to the people, my colleague ("Congressional Globe," last session, part 1, page 24) stateil : — " I will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done which ought in fuirnefs to have been done.'' I knew at the time this statement was made that I had ui^ed tlie very objection 196 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for the submission of the constitution. You will find my raraarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the appendix to the "Congressional Globe" of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you ask why I did not expose him at the time 1 I will tell you : Mr. Douglas was then doing good service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Repub- licans were then engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the Union as a Slave State against the wishes of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of, the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not provide for the submission of the constitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be found in the same volume of the " Congressional Globe," page 22, in which he says : — '' That the bill was silent on the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitution would be submitted to the people." Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yieldeon the records, which I have here present to show to any man who wishes to look at them. They establish beyond the power of controversy all the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else knowingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over the people of Kansas, without giving them an opportunity to pass upon it. That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed by Governor Bigler ; and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Union as a Slave State, is the fact, that the Republi- cans were sufficiently strong in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. Extract from Mr. Douglas's Speech made at Jacksonville, and referred [to bt Mr. Lincoln in his opening at Charleston. I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another topic upon which there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seat in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him and Lincoln, was here the other day and occupied his time in making certain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed that the charges he made here were sub- stantially the same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now propose to answer those charges and to anni- hilate every pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating them. In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will read them, as made by Mr. Trumbull, in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says : — "Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entere ^ I believe that the right of property in a slave is not Histinntly apd e^pr^gly [^ ' j affirmed in the Constitution^ and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the right of a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United States being the supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevit- ably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others that I think it will take a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said that the right of prop- erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are not prepared to show that no constitution or law can destroy that right I say I believe it will take a far better argument than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said, is not prepared, when- ever public sentiment is so far advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man ; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present form if the party that made it had not been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made, if that party is not sustained by the electiona I believe, further, that it is just as sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 219 shall be sustained. I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this sub- ject (I charge not his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that ( new Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the . reasons for his first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in • regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked i his attention to the fact that Jefferson differed with him in regard to the \ political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that " Judges | are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he said, substantially, / that " whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone." I have asked his attention to the fact that the Cincin- nati platform upon which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored deci- sion of the Supreme Court, in denying the power of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at one time in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, because it had made a decision distasteful to him, — a struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges who were to overslaugh that decision ; getting his title of Judge in that very way. So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge Douglas .v ^ ^ * \ upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swells hiui-1^, *• ^ self up and says, ** AH of us who stand by the decision of the Supreme Court \ ."■ ' t are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that dare question it in l;_. '^ aiiy way, are" the enemies of the Constitution/' Now, in this very devoted | ^ac[Hefence to this decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history, there is something very marked. And the manner in which he adheres to it, — not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely obligatory upon every one, simply because of the source from whence it comes, — as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it may be ; this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not inves- tigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I think I argue fairly (without questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when it comes ; and not only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he ** don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down ; " that " whoever wants slavery has a right to have it ; " that " upon principles of equality it should be allowed to go everywhere ; " that " there is no inconsistency between free and slave institutions." In this he is also preparing (whether purposely or not) the way for making the insti- tution of slavery national ! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do not charge that he means it so ; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the Free States, where there is now an abhorrence of / 220 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the iDstitutioi) of 8laver}% could you find an instrument so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it ? I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had a ten- dency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that " those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of the Colonization Society, — they must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return ; they must blot out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty ! " And I do think — I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion — that Judge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return ; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them ; that he is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason and the love of lib- erty, when he is in every possible way preparing the public mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call your atten- tion for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take me clear through it Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Free- port, there was one in about this language : " Are you opposed to the acqui- sition of any further territory to the United States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein ? " I answered, as I thought, in this way, that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support a proposition for the acquisition of additional territory according as my supporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery question ? " Judge Douglas answered, — that is, in his own way he answered it I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of his answer was, that this country would continue to expand ; that it would need additional territory ; that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like that Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect the slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially ; and he would leave the question of slav- ery where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired territory. [" That *s the doctrine."] May be it is ; let us consider that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one of the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 221 one of which promises additional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others ; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in favor of these mongrels set- tling the question, which would bring him somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race. It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additional ter- ritory is a power confided to the President and Senate of the United States. It is a power not under the control of the representatives of the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can be considered the repi'e- sentatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a case we have in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war, the House of Bepresentatives, composed of the immediate representatives of the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that slavery should be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the language that slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That was insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance that any territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far as the House of Eepresentatives was concerned. But at last the President and Senate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representatives anything about it, and took it without that prohibi- tion. They have the power of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of the people being called upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and powerful means of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in this slavery agitation. It is, therefore, as I think, a very important question for the consideration of the American people, whether the policy of bringing in additional territory, without considering at all how it will operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one great disturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted as the policy of the country. You will bear in mind that it is to be acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how fast territory is needed by the necessities of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibuster- ing, then, thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever wants wider slave- fields, feels sure that some additional territory is needed as slave-territory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as it is to assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration. Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation of property or temtoiy, it is very easy to assert, but much less easy to disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very grave ques- tion for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view of the fact that this slavery question has been the only one that has ever endangered our Ile- publican institutions, the only one that has ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbed us in such a way as to make 222 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN US fear for the perpetuity of our liberty, — in view of these facts, I think it is au exceedingly interesting and important question for this people to consider whether we shall engage in the policy of acquiring additional territory, discard- ing altogether from our consideration, while obtaining new territory, the ques- tion how it may affect us in regard to this, the only endangering element to our liberties and national greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an important and practical question. Our views are before the publia I am willing and anxious that they should consider them fully : that they should turn it about and consider the importance of the question, and arrive at a just I <-^ ^ ^ S conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this Union, in the '. ./ -acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it will add to the disturbance that is existing amongst us, — whether it will add to the one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think it is extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly decide, that ques- tion before entering upon that policy. And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it fully, without transcend- ing my time, which I would not for a moment think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. 7, MR DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Gentlemen : The highest compliment you can pay me during the brief f t fit half-hour that I have to conclude is by observing a strict silence. I desire to ^ ' ^ / J be heard rather than to be applauded. V A The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my speech was that it was , r -^- \ in substance what I have said everywhere else in the State where I have / / 4// iladdressed the people. I wish I could say the same of his speech. Why, the /^^ , jreason I complain of him is because he makes one speech north, and another ^ •; I* ** J * pouth. Because he has one set of sentiments for the Abolition counties, and , f V ^' ^nother set for the counties opposed to Abolitionism. My point of complaint gainst him is that I cannot induce him to liold up the same standard, to carry the same flag, in all parts of the State. He does not pretend, and no other man will, that I have one set of principles for Galesburgh, and another for Charlestoa He does not pretend that I hold to one doctrine in Chicago, and an opposite one in Jonesboro. I have proved that he has a different set of principles for each of these localities. All I asked of him was that he should deliver the speech that he has made here to-day in Coles County instead of in old Knox. It would have settled the question between us in that doubtful county. Here I understand him to realBBrm the doctrine of negro equality, and to assert that by the Declaration of Independence the negro is declared equal '• to the white man. He tells you to-day that the negro was included in the \ Declaration of Independence when it asseited that all men were created equal. . [" We believe it."] Very well. Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chicago, that the negro was included in that clause of the Declaration of Independence which says that all men were created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable / rights, among which are life, libeity, and the pursuit of happiness. If the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 228 negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality was established by divine law, and was the negro's inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State that the negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonged to an inferior race, and h^ was for keeping him always in that inferior condition ? I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston he said that the negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the people to understand that there was no moral question involved, be- cause, the inferiority being established, it was only a question of degree, and not a question of right ; here, to-day, instead of making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral question, says that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that inferior condition. [" He 's right."] Is he right now, or was he right in Charleston ? [** Both."] He is right then, sir, in your estimation, not because he is consistent, but because he can trim his principles any way, in any section, so as to secure votes. All I desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south that he does in the north. But did you notice how he answered my position that a man should hold the same doctrines throughout the length and breadth of this Kepublic ? He said, " Would Judge Douglas go to Kussia and proclaim the same principles he does here V I would remind him that Kussia is not under the American Constitution. If Bussia was a part of the American Republic, under our Fedeml Constitution, and I was sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain the same doctrine in Kussia that I do in Illinois. The slaveholding States are governed by the same Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the Constitution, must be the same in the South as they are in the North, the same in the Free States as they are in the Slave States. Whenever a man advocates one set of principles in one section, and another set in another section, his opinions are in violation of the spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to support. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 1847, and, laying his hand upon the Holy Evan- gelists, made a solemn vow, in the presence of high Heaven, that he would be faithful to the Constitution, what did he mean, — the Constitution as he expounds it in Galesburgh, or the Constitution as he expounds it in Charleston. Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of resolutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, which happened not to have been adopted there. He has used hard names ; has dared to talk about fraud, about forgery, and has insinuated that there was a conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind that he does not deny that these resolutions were adopted in a majority of all the Kepublican counties of this State in that year ; he does not deny that they were declared to be the platform of this Kepublican party in the first Congressional District, in the second, in the third, and in many counties of the fourth, and that they thus became the platform of his party in a major- ity of the counties upon which he now relies for support ; he does not deny the truthfulness of the resolutions, but takes exception to the spot on which they were adopted. He takes to himself gi^eat merit because he thinks they were not adopted on the right spot for me to use them against him, just as he was very severe in Congress upon the Government of his country when he thought that he had discovered that the Mexican war was not begun in the right spot, and was therefore unjust. He tries very hard to make out that there is something very extraordinary in the place where the thing was done. 224 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOI^ and not in the thing itself. I never believed before that Abraham Lincoln \vould be guilty of what he has done this day in regard to those resolutions. In the first place, the moment it was intimated to me that they bad been adopted at Aurora and Bockford instead of Springfield, I did not wait for him to call my attention to the fact, but led off, and explained in my first meeting after the Ottawa debate what the mistake Was, and how it had been made. I supposed that for an honest man, conscious of his own rectitude, that explana- tion would be sufficient I did not wait for him, after the mistake was made, to call my attention to it, but frankly explained it at once as an honest man would. I also gave the authority on which I had stated that these resolutions were adopted by the Springfield Bepublican Convention ; that I had seen them quoted by Major Harris in a debate in Congress, as having been adopted by the first Republican State Convention in Illinois, and that I had written to him and asked him for the authority as to the time and place of their adoption ; that. Major Harris being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written to me, for him, that they were adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, and had sent me a copy of the Springfield paper containing them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln reads the proceedings of meetings held years ago from the newspapers. After giving that explanation, I did not think there was an honest man in the State of Illinois who doubted that I had been led into the error, if it was such, innocently, in the way I detailed ; and I will now say that I do not now believe that there is an honest man on the face of the globe who will not regard with abhorrence and disgust Mr. Lin- coln's insinuations of my complicity in that forgery, if it was a foigery. Does Mr. Lincoln wish to push these things to the point of personal difficulties here ? I commenced this contest by treating him courteously and kindly ; I always spoke of him in words of respect ; and in return he has sought, and is now seeking to divert public attention from the enormity of his revolutionary principles by impeaching men's sincerity and integrity, and inviting personal quarrels. I desired to conduct this contest with him like a gentleman ; but I spurn the insinuation of complicity and fraud made upon the simple circumstance of an editor of a newspaper Iiaving made a mistake as to the place where a thing was done, but not as to the thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of this Republican party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year. They were adopted in a majority of the Republican counties in the Stat^:; " one of them, as shown by their opinions, holds the reverse. ^''Why this *' * \ attempt, then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people ? . It looks as if there was an effort being made to destroy public confidence in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he succeeds in destroying pu blic CQnfidence in the court, so that the people will not respect its decisfons .' but'will feel at liberty to disregard them and resist the laws of the land, 1 20 226 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN . what will he have gained ? He will have changed the government from one (i)f laws into that of a mob, iii which the strong arm of violence will l^e sub- stituted for the decisions of the courts of justice.v He complains because I did not go into an argument reviewing Chief Justice Taney's opinion, and the other opinions of the difiFerent judges, to determine whether their reasoning is right or wrong on the questions of law. What use would that be ? He wants to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to this meeting, to determine whether the questions of law were decided properly. He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States to every town meeting, in the hope that he can excite a prejudice against that court, and on the wave of that prejudice ride into the Senate of the United States, when he could not get there on his own piinciples or his own merits. Suppose he should succeed in getting into the Senate of the United States, what then will he have to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case ? Can he reverse that decision when he gets there ? Can he act upon it ? Has the Senate any right to reverse it or revise it ? He will not pretend that it has. Then why drag the matter into this contest, unless for the purpose of making a false issue, by which he can direct public attention from the real issue. He has cited General Jackson in justification of the war he is making on the decision of the court. Mr. Lincoln misunderstands the history of the country if he believes there is any parallel in the two cases. It is true that the Supreme Court once decided that if a Bank of the United States was a necessary fiscal agent of the government, it was constitutional, and if not, that it was unconstitutional, and also, that whether or not it was necessary for that purpose, was a political question for Congress, and not a judicial one for the courts to determine. Hence the court would not determine the bank uncon- stitutionaL Jackson respected the decision, obeyed the law, executed it, and earned it into efiTect during its existence ; but after the charter of the bank expired, and a proposition was made to create a new bank, General Jackson said, '' It is unnecessary and improper, and therefore I am against it on con- stitutional grounds as well as those of expediency." Is Congress bound to pass every Act that is constitutional ? Why, there are a thousand things that are constitutional, but yet are inexpedient and unnecessary, and you surely would not vote for them merely because you had the right to ? And because General Jackson would not do a thing which he had a right to do, but did not deem expedient or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going to justify himself in doing that which he has no right to do. I ask him whether he is not bound to respect and obey the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as I ? The Constitution has created that court to decide all constitutional questions in the last resort ; and when such decisions have been made, they become the law of the land, and you, and he, and myself, and every other good citizen, are bound by them. Yet he argues that I am bound by their decisions, and he is not. He says that their decisions are binding on Democrats, but not on Republicans. Are not Republicans bound by the laws of the land as well as Democrats ? And when the court has fixed the construction of the Constitution on the validity of a given law, is not their decision binding upon Republicans as well as upon Democrats ? Is it possible that you Republicans have the right to raise your mobs and oppose the laws of the land and the constituted authorities, and yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them ? My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I have to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. I stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, by the laws as they are AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 227 enacted, and by the decisions of the courts, upon all points within their juris- diction as they are pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth; and any man who resists these must resort to mob law and violence to overturn the goverament of laws. SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY. October 13, 1858. MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemex : I have had no immediate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois, which have since been consolidated into the Bepublican party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, in poli- tical language, is called a platform. In June of the same year the elements of the I^publican paity in the nation assembled together in a National Con- vention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858, — the present year, — the Bepublicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in them. In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas and myself. Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting of either one of these Conven- tions of which I have spoken. And as a ground for holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they had been passed at a State Conven- tion of the Republican party, and that I took part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this was erroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsible for had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, — had not been passed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that they had, and that they had been passed in no Convention in which I had taken part The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold me to the point that he was endeavoring to 228 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN make, by showing that the i-esolutions that he read had been passed at a local Convention in the northern part of the State, although it was not a local Con- vention that embraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearer than one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it met, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced other resolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, although they were aU antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one National Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, as I under- stand, that I am in some way responsible for them. At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this local meeting or Convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I was in no way embraced ; but I insisted to him that if he thought I was responsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and reso- lutions of all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsible. This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to his proposi- tion, that I am responsible for what some of my friends in different parts of the State have done, but that he is not responsible for what his have done. At least, so I understand him. But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to establish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the public ; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I make speeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something in answer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward i^ extract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that I was greatly incon- sistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in another region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speech at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivei*ed at Charleston, and I believe correctly : — *' I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of quali- fying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terras of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the Charleston speech, as Judge Douglas made it His comments are as follows : — AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 229 "Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction hetween races, or when he declares that he discards the doc- trine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South; with the old line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, and the Tenncsseeans, he tells you that there is a physical difference between the races, making the one superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro." Those are the Judge's coinmeuts. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or only lacking three days of a mouth, before I made the speech at Charleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me say substantially the same thing. It was in our first meeting at Ottawa — and I will say a woi-d about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after awhile — but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely to show my sentiments, but to show that my sentiments were long entertained and openly expressed ; in which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the white and black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the countiy would not, and that such a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that. That extract from my old speech, the reporters, by some sort of accident passed over, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I sup- pose they thought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I was reading it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At the end of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I made the comments which wei*e reported at that time, and which I will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me, down in Egypt. After reading, I added these words : — ** Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length ; but this is the true complexion of all I have over said in regard to the institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it : anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, tliat I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to intro- duce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in ray judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there roust be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I liave never said anything to the contrary, hut I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments ; but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglasi and the equal of every other man." ■•■■■taMaikaHi^MM 230 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I Lave chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge's charge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what I would say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc., but would not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of the Abolition ele- ment. I now make this comment : That speech from which I have now read the quotation, and which is there given correctly — perhaps too much so for good taste — was made away up North in the Abolition District of this State par excellence, in the Lovejoy District, — in the personal presence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. It had been made and put in print in that region only three days le.ss than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element I only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious of having attempted any double-dealing^ny- where, that upon one occasion I may say one thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa ; but that I have said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have said elsewhere, I deny, — at least I deny it so far as the intention is concerned. I And that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion of my time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon the Declaration of Independence, I am entirely borne out by the sentiments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here to show it from ; but because I have already occupied more time than I intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. At Galesbuigh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established in all the States as well as in the Territories. I did this because, upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Coui*t should make a decision declaring that the States had not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as a rule of political action ; and because he had not directly answered that question, but had merely con- tented himself with sneering at it, I again introduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decided by the court Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me at Galesbui^h, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he would or would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him this third chance to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, — probably he will not do either ; but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that this result, this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point already decided by the court The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thought of the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarks upon this subject uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me, the Judge says : " He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says the con- trary." And he adds : " Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the reverse.*' I especially introduce this subject again, for the purpose of saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay hLs finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where any one of them " says the contrary." It is very hard to aflirm a negative with entire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision, and, so far as I have been able AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 231 to do SO, the court has nowhere in its opinions said that the States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially that. I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring Judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said anything that was sub- stantially that. The nearest approach that any one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska Bill, — that the States had the exclusive power over the question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the Con- stitution of the United States. I asked the question, therefore, if the non- concurring Judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an express declaration that the States could absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, what reason have we to believe that it would not have been voted down by the majority of the Judges, just as Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it was ofiTered to the Nebraska Bill. Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfield resolu- tions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in bis reply to me seemed to be somewhat exasper- ated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attempted upon that occasion ; and among other expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, — that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge Douglas], Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in this political canvass, the Judge ought to rememl^r that I was not the first who dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech in answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the clase of what he said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern himself with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible for the slanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston after that, although I think that I should not have noticed the subject if he had not said he would hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statements of the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence that he would say was a forgery ! When I went through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of it was a foi^ery. So it seems that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares not to do. A voice : It *s the same thing with you. Mr. Lincoln: Yes, sir, it's the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when it 's true, and don't dare to say forgery when it 's false. Now I will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas, I have not dared to say he committed a forgery, and I never shall until I know it ; but I did dare to say — just to suggest to the Judge — that a forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of his public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he would make known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could not expect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the time that promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept his promise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am not a very daring man, but 232 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared about it yet. Wlien the Judge says he would n't have believed of Abraham Lincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that, he reminds me of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treat me courteously ; that touched me somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I was aware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I were to have these seven joint discussions, that they were the successive acts of a drama, — perhaps I should say, to be enacted, not merely in the face of audiences like this, but in the face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and not from anything in myself, in the face of the world ; and I am anxious that they sl\ould be conducted with dignity and in the good temper which would be befitting the vast audi- ence before which it was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterwai-d I made some sort of a reply to it. His second speech was made at Blooming- ton, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that I had used language ingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, — or words to that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led ofif by charging a bargain, somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull and myself, — that we had entered into a bargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party ; I pretending to be as good an old line Whig as ever. Judge Douglas may not understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when he said I was doing one thing and pretending another ; and I misunderstood him if he thought he was treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and truth, as he now claims he was disposed to ti*eat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago, and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that I was trying to play a double part, — that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon another set of principles at another place, — I do not understand but what he impeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor ; and because he does this, I do not under- stand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was disposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might have, — to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purpose made to do as well as I could upon him ; and now I say that I will not be the first to cry " hold." I think it originated with the Judge and when he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one of his early speeches, when he called me an " amiable " man, though perhaps he did when he called me an " intelligent " man. It really hurt^ me very much to suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no ! T very much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter recol- lections of personal difficulties. The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was push- ing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, now, that AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 233 I will again state our principles as well as I hastily can, in all their enormity and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war upon these principles, he will probably not find me departing from the same course. We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it That controversy necessarily springs from difiference of opinion ; and if we can learn exactly — can reduce to the lowest elements — what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no other than the dif- ference between the men who think slavery a wrong, and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong ; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclina- tion to disturb it tlian we have the right to do it. We go further than that : we don't propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Consti- tution would permit us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to, — the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the consti- tutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guarantees thrown around it We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled ; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States themselvea We 30 A 234 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject I will add this, that if there be any man who does not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us. While, on the other hand, if there be any man in the Kepublican party who is impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guarantees thrown around it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find his place somewhere else ; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in aU their enormity. I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me, — a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the Democmtic party in relation to this subject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to prove that proposition. In the first place, the leading man — I think I may do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such — advocating the present Democratic policy, never himself says it is wrong. He has the high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or the other, but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him, in the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never say^ that it is wrong. In the second place, I suggest to him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it If you will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is any- thing wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am, will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to anybody else saying so? Do you not con- stantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it ? You say it must not be opposed in the Free States, because slavery is not here ; it must not be opposed in the Slave States, because it is there ; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss ; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it ? There is no suitable place to oppose it There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. Prank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradual emancipa- tion in Missouri, had an election in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, and hallooed " Hurrah for Democracy." So I say, again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he " don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it ; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say AND STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 235 that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution ; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says that slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is no difference between them as property ; but if the one is property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality between the right and wrong ; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the arguments sustaining the Demo- cratic policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are wrong. I have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real differ- ence between us ; and I now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong, — then, and not till then, I think we will in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen : Permit me to say that unless silence is observed it wUl be impossible for me to be heard by this immense crowd, and my friends can confer no higher favor upon me than by omitting all expressions of applause or approbation. I desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. I wish to address myself to your reason, your judgment, your sense of justice, and not to your passions. I regi*et that Mr. Lincoln should have deemed it proper for him to again indulge in gross personalities and base insinuations in regard to the Springfield resolutions. It has imposed upon me the necessity of using some portion of my time for the purpose of calling your attention to the facts of the case, and it will then be for you to say what you think of a man who can predicate such a charge upon the circumstances as he has in this. I had seen the platform adopted by a Republican Congressional Convention held in Aurora, the Second Congressional District, in September, 1854, published as purport- ing to be the platform of the Bepublican party. That platform declared that the Republican party was pledged never to admit another Slave State into the Union, and also that it was pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Terri- tories of the United States, not only all that we then had, but all that we should thereafter acquire, and to repeal unconditionally the Fugitive Slave law, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit the slave-trade between the different States. These and other articles against slavery were contained in this platform, and unanimously adopted by the Bepublican Con- gressional Convention in that District I bad also seen that the Republican Congressional Conventions at Rockford, in the First District, and at Bloom- ington, in the Third, had adopted the same platform that year, nearly word for word, and had declared it to be the platform of the Republican party. I had noticed that Major Thomas L. Harris, a member of Congress from the Springfield District, had referred to that platform in a speech in Congress as 236 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN having been adopted by the first Bepublican State Convention which as- embled in Illinois. When I had occasion to use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to Major Harris to know on what day that Convention was held, and to ask him to send me its proceedings. He being sick, Charles H. Lanphier answered my letter by sending me the published proceedings of the Con- vention held at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, as they appeared in the report of the " State Segister." I read those resolutions from that news- paper the same as any of you would refer back and quote any fact from the files of a newspaper which had published it. Mr. Lincoln pretends that after I had so quoted those resolutions he discovered that they had never been adopted at Springfield. He does not deny their adoption by the Republican party at Aurora, at Bloomington, and at Bockford, and by nearly all the Republican County Conventions in Northern Illinois where his party is in a majority, but merely because they were not adopted on the " spot " on which I said they were, he chooses to quibble about the place rather than meet and discuss the merits of the resolutions themselves. I stated when I quoted them that I did so from the "State Register." I gave my authority. Lincoln believed at the time, as he has since admitted, that they had been adopted at Springfield, as published Does he believe now that I did not tell the truth when I quoted those resolutions ? He knows, in his heart, that I quoted them in good faith believing at the time that they had been adopted at Springfield. I would consider myself an infamous wretch, if, under such circumstances, I could charge any man with being a paity to a trick or a fraud. And I will tell him, too, that it will not do to charge a forgery on Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. No man on earth, who knows them, and knows Lincoln, would take his oath against their word. There are not two men in the State of Illinois who have higher characters for truth, for integrity, for moral character, and for elevation of tone, as gentlemen, than Mr. Lanphier and Mr. Harris. Any man who attempts to make such chains as Mr. Lincoln has indulged in against them, only proclaims himself a slanderer. I will now show you that I stated with entire fairness, as soon as it was made known to me, that there was a mistake about the spot where the resolutions had been adopted, although their tmthfulness, as a declaration of the principles of the Republican party, had not and could not be questioned. I did not wait for Lincoln to point out the mistake, but the moment I discovered it, I made a speech, and published it to the world, correcting the error. I corrected it myself, as a gentleman and an honest man, and as I always feel proud to do when I have made a mistake. I wish Mr. Lincoln could show that he has acted with equal fairness and truthfulness when I have convinced him that he has been mistaken. I will give you an illustration to show you how he acts in a similar case : In a speech at Springfield, he charged Chief Justice Taney and his associates, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself, with having entered into a conspiracy at the time the Nebraska bill was intro- duced, by which the Dred Scott decision was to be made by the Supreme Court, in order to carry slavery everywhere under the Constitution. I called his attention to the fact that at the time alluded to, to wit, the introduction of the Nebraska bill, it was not possible that such a conspiracy could have been entered into, for the reason that the Dred Scott case had never been taken before the Supreme Court, and was not taken before it for a year after ; and I asked him to take back that charge. Did he do it ? I showed him that it was impossible that the charge could be true ; I proved it by the record ; and I then called upon him to retract his false charge. What was his answer ? AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 237 Instead of coming out like an honest man and doing so, be reiterated the charge, and said that if the case had not gone up to the Supreme Court from the courts of Missouri at the time he charged that the Judges of the Supreme Court entered into the conspiracy, yet, that there was an understanding with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they would take it up. I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could not tell, and why ? Because there were no such Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned by the Eev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress, of Springfield, Massachusetts, in right of his wife. He was owned by one of Lincoln's friends, and not by Democrats at all ; his case was conducted in court by Abolition lawyers, so that both the prosecution and the defence were in the hands of the Abolition political friends of Mr. Lincoln. Notwithstanding I thus proved by the record that his charge against the Supreme Court was false, instead of taking it back, he resorted to another false charge to sustain the infamy of it He also charged President Buchanan with having been a party to the conspiracy. I directed his attention to the fact that the charge could not possibly be true, for the reason that at the time specified, Mr. Buchanan was not in America, but was three thousand miles off, representing the United States at the Court of St. James, and had been there for a year previous, and did not return until three years afterward. Yet I never could get Mr. Lincoln to take back his false charge, although I have called upon him over and over again. He refuses to do it, and either remains silent, or resorts to other tricks to try and palm his slander off on the country. Therein you will find the difference between Mr. Tincoln and myself. When I make a mistake, as an honest man I con-ect it without being asked to do so ; but when he makes a false charge, he sticks to it, and never corrects it. One word more in regard to these resolutions ; I quoted them at Ottawa merely to ask Mr. Lincoln whether he stood on that platform. That was the purpose for which I quoted them. I did not think that I had a right to put idle questions to him, and I first laid a foundation for my questions by showing that the principles which I wished him either to affirm or deny had been adopted by some portion of his friends, at least, as their creed. Hence I read the resolutions and put the questions to him ; and he then refused to answer them. Subsequently, one week afterward, he did answer a part of them, but the others he has not answered up to this day. Now, let me call your attention for a moment to the answers which Mr. Lincoln made at Freeport to the questions which I propounded him at Ot- tawa, based upon the platform adopted by a majority of the Abolition counties of the State, which now, as then, supported him. In answer to my question whether he indorsed the Black Republican principle of " no more Slave States," he answered that he was not pledged against the admission of any more Slave States, but that he would be very sorry if he should ever be placed in a posi- tion where he would have to vote on the question ; that he would rejoice to know that no more Slave States would be admitted into the Union. " But," he added, " if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a clear field when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alteniative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union." The point I wish him to answer is this : Suppose Congress should not prohibit slavery in the Territory, and it applied for admission with a constitution recognizing slavery, then how would 238 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN he vote ? His answer at Freeport does not apply to any territory in America. I ask you [turning to Lincoln], will you vote to admit Kansas into the Union, with just such a constitution as her people want, with slavery or without, as they shall determine ? He will not answer. I have put that question to him time and time again, and have not been able to get an answer out of him. I ask you again, Lincoln, will you vote to admit New Mexico, when she has the requisite population, with such a constitution as her people adopt, either recog- nizing slavery or not, as they shall determine ? He will not answer. I put the same question to him in reference to Oregon and the new States to be carved out of Texas, in pursuance of the contract between Texas and the United States, and he will not answer. He will not answer these questions in reference to any territory now in existence, but says that if Congress should prohibit slavery in a Territoiy, and when its people asked for admission as a State, they should adopt slavery as one of their institutions, that he supposes he would have to let it come in. I submit to you whether that answer of his to my question does not justify me in saying that he has a fertile genius in devising language to conceal bis thoughts. I ask you whether there is an intelligent man in America who does not believe that that answer was made for the purpose of concealing what he intended to do. He wished to make the old line Whigs believe that he would stand by the Compromise Measures of 1850, which declared that the States might come into the Union with slavery, or without, as they pleased, while Lovejoy and his Abolition allies up north explained to the Abolitionists that in taking this ground he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his proviso would not apply to any territory in America, and therefore there was no chance of his being governed by it. It would have been quite easy for him to have said that he would let the people of a State do just as they pleased, if he desired to convey such an idea. Why did he not do it ? He would not answer my question directly, because up north, the Abolition ci*eed declares that there shall be no more Slave States, while down south, in Adams County, in Coles, and in Sangamon, he and his friends are afraid to advance that doctrine. Therefore, he gives an evasive and equivocal answer, to be construed one way in the south and another way in the north, which, when analyzed, it is apparent is not an answer at all with reference to any territory now in existence. Mr. Lincoln complains that in my speech the other day at Galesburgh I read an extract from a speech delivered by him at Chicago, and then another from his speech at Charleston, and compared them, thus showing the people that he had one set of principles in one part of the State, and another in the other part. And how does he answer that charge ? Why, he quotes from his Charleston speech as I quoted from it, and then quotes another extract from a speech which he made at another place, which he says is the same as the extract from his speech at Charleston ; but he does not quote the extract from his Chicago speech, upon which I convicted him of double-dealing. I quoted from his Chicago speech to prove that he held one set of principles up north among the Abolitionists, and from his Charleston speech to prove that he held another set down at Charleston and in southern Illinois. In his answer to this charge, he ignores entirely his Chicago speech, and merely argues that he said the same thing which he said at Charleston at another place. If he did, it follows that he has twice, instead of once, held one creed in one part of the State, and a diflereut creed in another part. Up at Chicago, in the opening of the campaign, he reviewed my reception speech, and undertook to answer my argument attacking his favorite doctrine of negro AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 289 equality. I bad shown that it was a falsification of the Declaration of Inde- pendence to pretend that that instrument applied to and included negroes in the clause declaring that all men were created equal What was Lincoln's reply ? I will read from his Chicago speech and the one which he did not quote, and dare not quote, in this part of the State. He said : — ''I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men aro equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop 1 If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man ) If that declaration is not the truth, let us get this statute book in which we find it, and tear it out." There you find that Mr. Lincoln told the Abolitionists of Chicago that if the Declaration of Independence did not declare that the negro was created by the Almighty the equal of the white man, that you ought to take that instrument and tear out the clause which says that all men were created equal. But let me call your attention to another part of the same speech. You know that in his Charleston speech, an extract from which he has read, he declared that the negro belongs to an inferior race, is physically inferior to the white man, and should always be kept in an inferior position. I wull now read to you what he said at Chicago on that point In concluding his speech at that place, he remarked : — " My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race, and that race, and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." Thus you see that when addressing the Chicago Abolitionists he declared that all distinctions of race must be discarded and blotted out, because the negro stood on an equal footing with the whit^ man ; that if one man said the Declaration of Independence did not mean a negro when it declared all men created equal, that another man would say that it did not mean another man ; and hence we ought to discard all difference between the negro race and all other races, and declare them all created equal. Did old Giddings, when he came down among you four years ago, preach more radical Aboli- tionism than this ? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell Phillips, or Fred Douglass ever take higher Abolition grounds than that ? Lincoln told you that I had charged him with getting up these personal attacks to conceal the enormity of his principles, and then commenced talking about something else, omitting to quote this part of his Chicago speech which contained the enormity of his principles to which I alluded. He knew that I alluded to his negro-equality doctrines when I spoke of the enormity of his principles, yet he did not find it convenient to answer on that point. Having shown you what he said in his Chicago speech in reference to negroes being created equal to white men, and about discarding all distinctions between the two races, I will again read to you what he said at Charleston : — " I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races ; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I 240 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man." A voice : That 's the doctrine. Mr. Douglas : Yes, sir, that is good doctrine ; but Mr. Lincoln is afraid to advocate it in the latitude of Chicago, where he hopes to get his votes. It is good doctrine in the anti-Abolition counties for him, and his Chicago speech is good doctrine in the Abolition counties. I assert, on the authority of these two speeches of Mr. Lincoln, that he holds one set of principles in the Aboli- tion counties, and a different and contradictory set in the other counties. I do not question that he said at Ottawa what he quoted ; but that only convicts hiai further, by proving that he has twice contradicted himself, instead of once. Let me ask him why he cannot avow his principles the same in the north as in the south, — the same in every county, — if he has a conviction that they are just? But I forgot, — he would not be a Republican, if his principles would apply alike to every part of the country. The party to which he belongs is bounded and limited by geographical lines. With their principles, they cannot even cross the Mississippi River on your ferry-boats. They can- not cross over the Ohio into Kentucky. Lincoln himself cannot visit the land of his fathers, the scenes of his childhood, the graves of his ancestors, and carry his Abolition principles, as he declared them at Chic^o, with him. This Republican organization appeals to the North against the South : it appeals to Northern passion, Northeni prejudice, and Northern ambition, against Southern people. Southern States, and Southern institutions, -and its only hope of success is by that appeal. Atr. Lincoln goes on to justify himself in making a war upon slavery upon the ground that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown did not succeed in their warfare upon the institutions in Missouri. Frank Blair was elected to Congress in 1856, from the State of Missouri, as a Buchanan Democrat, and he turned Fremonter after the people elected him, thus belonging to one party before his election, and another afterward. What right then had he to expect, after having thus cheated his constituency, that they would support him at another election ? Mr. Lincoln thinks that it is his duty to preach a crusade in the Free States against slavery, because it is a crime, as he believes, and ought to be extinguished, and because the people of the Slave States will never abolish it. How is he going to abolish it ? Down in the southern part of the State he takes the ground openly that he will not interfere with slavery where it exists, and says that he is not now and never was in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists in the States. Well, if he is not in favor of that, how does he expect to bring slavery in a course of ultimate extinction ? How can he extinguish it in Kentucky, in Virginia, in all the Slave States by his policy, if he will not pursue a policy which will interfere with it in the States where it exists ? In his speech at Springfield before the Abolition, or Republican, Convention, he declared his hostility to any more Slave States in this language : — " Under the operation of that policy the agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. * A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 241 the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the oppo- nents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it'l where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it simll become alike lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South.'' Mr. Lincoln there told his Abolition friends that this government could not endure permanently, divided into Free and Slave States as our fathers made it, and that it must become all free or all slave ; otherwise, that the govern- ment could not exist. How then does Lincoln propose to save the Union, unless by compelling all the States to become free, so that the house shall not be divided against itself ? He intends making them all free ; he will preserve the Union in that way ; and yet he is not going to interfere with slavery where it now exists. How is he going to bring it about ? Why, he will agitate, he will induce the North to agitate, until the South shall be worried out and forced to abolish slavery. Let us examine the policy by which that is to be done. He first tells you that he would prohibit slavery everywhere in the Territories. He would thus confine slavery within its present limits. When he thus gets it confined, and surrounded, so that it cannot spread, the natural laws of increase will go on until the negroes will be so plenty that they cannot live on the soil. He will hem them in until starvation seizes them, and by starving them to death, he will put slavery in the course of ultimate extinc- tion. If he is not going to interfere with slavery in the States, but intends to interfere and prohibit it in the Territories, and thus smother slavery out, it naturally follows that he can extinguish it only by extinguishing the negro race ; for his policy would drive them to starvation. This is the humane and Christian remedy that he proposes for the great crime of slavery ! He tells you that I will not argue the question whether slavery is right or wrong. I tell you why I will not do it. I hold that, under the Constitution of the United States, each State of this Union has a right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by prohibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve of that line of policy. We have performed our whole duty in Illinois. We have gone as far as we have a right to go under the Constitution of our common country. It is none of our business whether slavery exists in Missouri or not. Missouri is a sovereign State of this Union, and has the same right to decide the slavery question for herself that Illinois has to decide it for herself. Hence I do not choose to occupy the time allotted to me in discussing a question that we have no right to act upon. I thought that you desired to hear us upon those ques- tions coming within our constitutional power or action. Lincoln will not discuss these. What one question has he disicussed that comes within the power or calls for the action or interference of ati United States Senator ? He is going to discuss the rightfulness of slavery when Congress cannot act upon it either way. He wishes to discuss the merits of the Dred Scott decision when, under the Constitution, a senator has no right to interfere with the deci- sion of judicial tribunals. He wants your exclusive attention to two questions that he has no power to act upon ; to two questions that he could not vote upon if he was in Congress ; to two questions that are not practical, — in order to conceal your attention from other questions which he might be required to vote upon should he ever become a member of Congress. He tells you that he does not like the Dred Scott decision. Suppose he does not, how is he going 31 242 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN to help himself ? He says that he will reverse it How will he reverse it ? I know of but one mode of reversing judicial decisions, and that is by appealinp^ from the inferior to the superior court. But I have never yet learned how or where an appeal could be taken from the Supreme Court of the United States I The Dred Scott decision was pronounced by the highest I tribunal on earth. From that decision there is no appeal, this side of Heaven. ^* Yet, Mr. Lincoln says he is going to reverse that decision. By what tribunal will he reverse it ? Will he appeal to a mob ? Does he intend to appeal to violence, to Lynch law ? Will he stir up strife and rebellion in the land, and overthrow the court by violence ? He does not deign to tell you how he will reverse the Dred Scott decision, but keeps appealing each day from the Supreme Court of the United States to political meetings in the country. He wants me to argue with you the merits of each point of that decision before this political meeting. I say to you, with all due respect, that I choose to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court as they are pronou;nced. It is not for me to inquire, after a decision is made, whether I like it in all the points or not. When I used to practise law with Lincoln, I never knew him to be beat in a case that he did not get mad at the judge, and talk about appealing ; and when I got beat, I generally thought the court was wrong, but I never dreamed of going out of the court-house and making, a stump speech to the people against the judge, merely because I had found out that I did not know the law as well as he did. If the decision did not suit me, I appealed until I got to the Supreme Court ; and then if that court, the highest tribunal in the world, decided against me, I was satisfied, because it is the duty of every law- abiding man to obey the constitutions, the laws, and the constituted author- ities. He who attempts to stir up odium and rebellion in the country against the constituted authorities, is stimulating the passions of men to resoit to violence and to mobs instead of to the law. Hence, I tell you that I take the decisions of the Supreme Court as the law of the land, and I intend to obey them as such. But Mr. Lincoln says that I will not answer his question as to what I would do in the event of the court making so ridiculous a decision as he imagines they would by deciding that the free State of Illinois could not prohibit slavery within her own limits. I told him at Freeport why I would not answer such a question. I told him that there was not a man possessing any brains in America, lawyer or not, who ever dreamed that such a thing could be done. I told him then, as I do now, that by all the principles set forth in the Dred Scott decision, it is impossible. I told him then, as I do now, that it is an insult to men's understanding, and a gross calumny on the court, to presume in advance that it was going to degrade itself so low as to make a decision known to be in direct violation of the Constitution. A voice : The same thing was said about the Dred Scott decision before it passed. Mr. Douglas : Perhaps you think that the coui*t did the same thing in reference to the Dred Scott decision : I have heard a man talk that way before. The principles contained in the Dred Scott decision had been affirmed pre- viously in various other decisions. What court or judge ever held that a negro was a citizen? The State courts had decided that question over and over again, and the Dred Scott decision on that point only affirmed what every court in the land knew to be the law. But I will not be drawn off into an argument upon the merits of the Dred Scott decision. It is enough for me to know that the Constitution of the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 243 United States created the Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding all dis- puted questions touching the true construction of that instrument, and when such decisions are pronounced, they are the law of the land, binding on every good citizen. Mr. Lincoln has a very convenient mode of arguing upon the subject He holds that because he is a Eepublican that he is not bound by the decisions of the court, but that I, being a Democrat, am so bound. It may be that Eepublicans do not hold themselves bound by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country as expounded by the courts ; it may be an article in the Bepublican creed that men who do not like a decision have a right to rebel against it : but when Mr. Lincoln preaches that doctrine, I think he will find some honest Bepublican — some law-abiding man in that party — who will repudiate such a monstrous doctrine. The decision in the Dred Scott case is binding on every American citizen alike; and yet Mr. Lincoln argues that the Republicans are not bound by it because they are opposed to it, whilst Democrats are bound by it, because we will not resist it. A Democrat cannot resist the constituted authorities of this country ; a Demo- crat is a law-abiding man ; a Democrat stands by the Constitution and the laws, and relies upon liberty as protected by law, and not upon mob or political violence. I have never yet been able to make Mr. Lincoln understand, or can I make any man who is determined to support him, right or wrong, understand how it is that under the Dred Scott decision the people of a Territory, as well as a State, can have slavery or not, just as they please. I believe that I can explain that proposition to all constitution-loving, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail to understand it. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, said that, slaves being property, the owner of them has a right to take them into a Territory the same as he would any other property ; in other words, that slave property, so far as the right to enter a Territory is concerned, stands on the same footing with other property. Suppose we grant that prop- osition. Then any man has a right to go to Kansas and take his property with him ; but when he gets there, he must rely upon the local law to protect his property, whatever it may be. In order to illustrate this, imagine that three of you conclude to go to Kansas. One takes 810,000 worth of slaves, another $10,000 worth of liquors, and the third 810,000 worth of dry goods. When the man who owns the dry goods arrives out there and commences sell- ing them, he finds that he is stopped and prohibited from selling until he gets a license, which will destroy all the profits he can make on his goods to pay for. When the man with the liquors gets there and tries to sell, he finds a Maine liquor law in force which prevents him. Now, of what use is his right to go there with his property unless he is protected in the enjoyment of that right after he gets there ? The man who goes there with his slaves finds that there is no law to protect him when he arrives there. He has no remedy if his slaves run away to another country ; there is no slave code or police regula- tions ; and the absence of them excludes his slaves from the Territory just as effectually and as positively as a constitutional prohibition could. Such was the understanding when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was pend- ing in Congress. Bead the speech of Speaker Orr, of South Carolina, in the House of Bepresentatives, in 1856, on the Kansas question, and you will find that he takes the ground that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory and carry his slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave code to protect him. He tells you that slavery would not exist a day in South Carolina, or any other State, unless 244 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN there was a friendly people and friendly legislation. Read the speeches of that giant in intellect, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and you will find them to the same efiTect. Bead the speeches of Sam Smith, of Tennessee, and of all Southern men and you will find that they all understood this doctrine then as we understand it now. Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand it, however. Down at Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Ck)nstitution, that then a member of Congress was perjured if he did not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon him as well as on me ? If so, and he holds that he would be perjured if he did not vote for a slave code under it, I ask him whether, if elected to Congress, he will so vote ? I have a right to his answer, and I will tell you why. He put that question to me down in Egypt, and did it with an air of triumph. This was about the form of it : " In the event that a slave- holding citizen of one of the Territories should need and demand a slave code to protect his slaves, will you vote for it ? " I answered him that a funda- mental article in the Democratic creed, as put forth in the Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform, was non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, and hence that I would not vote in Congress for any code of laws, either for or against slavery, in any Teiritory. I will leave the people perfectly free to decide that question for themselves. Mr. Lincoln and the Washington " Union " both think this a monstrous bad doctrine. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor the Washington " Union " like my Freeport speech on that subject. The " L^nion," in a late number, has been reading me out of the Democratic party because I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, have the right to have slaveiy or not, as they please. It has devoted three and a half columns to prove certain propositions, one of which I will read. It says : — ''We propose to show that Judge Douglas's action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with especial reference to the announcement of doctrine and programme which was made at Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was, that ' in his opinion the people can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State ; ' and he declared that his competitor had ' heard him argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 1856, and had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt upon that subject.* " The Washington " Union " there charges me with the monstrous crime of now proclaiming on the stump the same doctrine that 1 carried out in 1850, by supporting Clay's Compromise Measures. The " Union *' also charges that I am now proclaiming the same doctrine that I did in 1854 in support of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. It is shocked that I should now stand where I stood in 1850, when I was supported by Clay, Webster, Cass, and the great men of that day, and where I stood in 1854 and in 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was elected President. It goes on to prove, and succeeds in proving, from my speeches in Congress on Clay's Compromise Measures, that I held the same doctrines at that time that I do now, and then proves that by the Kansas and Nebraska bill I advanced the same doctrine that I now advance. It remarks : — ''So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on the Compromises of 1850. The record shows, beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute, that he expressly intended in those bills to give the Territorial Legislatures power to exclude slavery. How stands his record in the memorable session of 1854, with reference to the Kansas- Nebraska bill itself 1 We shall not overhaul the votes that were given on that notable measure. AND STEPHEN A. ,DOUGLA& 245 our space will not afford it. We have his own words, however, delivered in his speech closing the great debate on that bill on the night of March 3, 1854, to show that he meant to do in 1854 precisely what he had meant to do in 1858. The Kansas- Nebraska bill being upon its passage, he said : " It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the bill as follows : — '* * The principle which we propose to carry into effect by this bill is this : That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor out of the same ; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri Act inoperative and void. ** ' Now, let me ask, will those senators who have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to Territorial bills, in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new Territorial organizations, etc., etc. I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills, including the following measures : the admission of California, a Territorial govern- ment for Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebranka bill now under discussion. A few weeks afterward the committee of thir- teen took those bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One of these amendments was, that the Territorial Legislatures should not legislate upon the vihject of African slavery, I objected to this provision^ upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of self- government, upon which the bill had been originally framed by the TerritoricU Com- mittee, On the first trial the Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently did so, upon full debate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of action in Territorial organizations. ' " The " Union " comments thus upon my speech on that occasion : — " Thus it is seen that, in framing the Nebraska-Kansas bill. Judge Douglas framed it in the terms and upon the model of those of Utah and New Mexico, and that in the debate he took pains expressly to revive the recollection of the voting which had taken place upon amendments affecting the powers of the Territorial Legislatures over the subject of slavery in the bills of 1850, in order to give the same meaning, force, and effect to the Nebraska-Kansas bill on this subject as had been given to those of Utah and New Mexico." The " Union " proves the following propositions : First, that I sustained Clay's Compromise Measures on the ground that they established the principle of self-government in the Territories. Secondly, that I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, founded upon the same principles as Clay's Compromise Measures of 1850 ; and, thirdly, that my Freeport speech is in exact accord- ance with those principles. And what do you think is the imputation that the " Union " casts upon me for all this ? It says that my Freeport speech is not Democratic, and that I was not a Democrat in 1854 or in 1850 ! Now is not that funny? Think that the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was not a Democrat when he introduced it I The " Union " says I was not a 246 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 1856, nor am I in 1858, because I have always taken and now occupy the ground that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist in a Territory I I wish to cite, for the benefit of the Washington " Union " and the followers of that sheet, one authority on that point, and I hope the authority will be deemed satisfactory t^o that class of politicians. I will read from Mr. Buchanan's letter accepting the nomination of the Democratic Convention, for the Presidency. You know that Mr. Buchanan, after he was nominated, declared to the Keystone Club, in a public speech, that he was no longer James Buchanan, but the embodiment of the Democratic platform. In his letter to the committee which informed him of his nomination accepting it, he defined the meaning of the Kansas and Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform in these words : — ** The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Thus you see that James Buchanan accepted the nomination at Cincinnati, on the conditions that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should be left to decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained James Buchanan for the Presidency on that platform as adopted at Cincinnati, and expounded by himself. He was elected President on that platform, and now we are told by the Washington " Union " that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained and expounded him- self We are told that a man is not a Democrat who stands by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise Measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that plat- form, I intend to stand there as long as I have life. I intend to cling fii-mly to that great principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to settle the question of slavery, and every other domestic question, for them- selves. I hold that if they want a Slave State, they have a right under the Constitution of the United States to make it so, and if they want a Free State, it is their right to have it But the " Union," in advocating the claims of Lincoln over me to the Senate, lays down two unpardonable heresies which it says I advocate. The first is the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide for themselves the question whether slavery shall exist within their limits, in the language of Mr. Buchanan ; and the second is, that a Constitution shall be submitted to the people of a Territory for its adoption or rejection before their admission as a State under it It so happens that Mr. Buchanan is pledged to both these heresies, for supporting which the Washington ** Union " has read me out of the Democratic church. In his annual message he said he trusted that the example of the Minnesota case would be followed in all future cases, requiring a submission of the Constitu- tion ; and in his letter of acceptance, he said that the people of a Territory, the same as a State, had the right to decide for themselves whether slavery should exist within their limits. Thus you find that this little corrupt gang who control the " Union " and wish to elect Lincoln in preference to me, — because, as they say, of these two heresies which I support, — denounce President AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 247 Buchanan when they denounce me, if he stands now by the principles upon which he was elected. Will they pretend that he does not now stand by the principles on which he was elected ? Do they hold that he has abandoned the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Cincinnati platform, and his own letter accepting his nomination, all of which declare the right of the people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide the slavery question for themselves ? I will not believe that he has betrayed or intends to betray the platform which elected him ; but if he does, I will not follow him. I will stand by that great principle, no matter who may desert it. I intend to stand by it, for the purpose of pre- serving peace between the North and the South, the Free and the Slave States. If each State will only agree to mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us. We in Illinois tried slavery when a Territory, and found it was not good for us in this climate, and with our surroundings, and hence we abolished it. We then adopted a free State constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speak- ing of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves, that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to "us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery ques- tion for themselves, within their own limits. I asseii; that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great constitutioncd right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic. Under that principle the United States can perform that great mission, that destiny, which Providence has marked out for us. Under that principle we can receive with entire safety that stream of intelli- gence which is constantly flowing from the Old World to the New, filling up our prairies, clearing our wildernesses, and building cities, towns, railroads, and other internal improvements, and thus make this the asylum of the oppressed of the whole earth. We have this great mission to perform, and it can only be performed by adhering faithfully to that principle of self-government on which our institutions were all established. I repeat that the principle is the right of each State, each Territory, to decide this slavery question for itself, to have slavery or not, as it chooses ; and it does not become Mr. Lincoln, or anybody else, to tell the people of Kentucky that they have no consciences, that they are living in a state of iniquity, and that they are cherishing an institution to their bosoms in violation of the law of God. Better for him to adopt the doctrine of "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged." Let him perform his own duty at home, and he will have a better fate in the futura I think there are 248 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN objects of charity enough in the Free States to excite the sympathies and open the pockets of all the benevolence we have amongst us, without going abroad in search of negroes, of whose condition we know nothing. We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own poor and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle with other people's business. My friends, I am told that my time is within two minutes of expiring. I have omitted many topics that I would like to have discussed before you at length. There were many points touched by Mr. Lincoln that I have not been able to take up for the want of time. I have hurried over each subject that I have discussed as rapidly as possible, so as to omit but few ; but one hour and a half is not time sufficient for a man to discuss at length one hcdf of the great questions which are now dividing the public mind. In conclusion, I desire to return to you my grateful acknowledgments for the kindness and the courtesy with which you have listened to me. It is something remarkable that in an audience as vast as this, composed of men of opposite politics and views, with their passions highly excited, there should be so much courtesy, kindness, and respect exhibited, not only toward one another, but toward the speakers ; and I feel that it is due to you that I should thus express my gratitude for the kindness with which you have treated me. MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. My Friends : Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half. I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annun- ciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his systein of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer tlie true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you, " Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it, forever t*' In the first place, I insist that our fathers did 7iot make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, ?ie assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that : when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the abo- lition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction ; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it? It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of slavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, AND STEPHEK A. DOUGLAS. 249 of Soutb Carolina, once saM, and truly said, that when tliig government was established, no one expected the institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed this government were wiser and better than the men of these days ; but the men of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and that expenence had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-pin basis. It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they could not let it remain where the fatliers of the government originally placed it I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the doctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the Slave States, about the institution of slavery, — thus giving the Judge an opportunity to make himself eloquent and valiant against us in fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech tliat I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Viiwinia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. Then what becomes of all his eloquence in behaU of the rights of States, which are assailed by no living man ? But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington " Union " ia laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This is newa to me, — not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on the stand] — I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me ; but I am glad of all the support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practising any deception to obtain it. In respect to this lai^e portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which be tries to show that in the controversy between himself and the Administration par^ he is in the right, I do not feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, " Give it to them, — give it to them just all you can ;" and, on the other hand, I say to Oarlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, " Give it to Douglas, — just pour it into him." Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decisioB is made holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he will support it or not He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in that case. The Judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to say what they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you remember that in my opening speech I told him I bad the book containing that decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the place where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half^ and he has not ventured to try to sus- tain his assertion. ITe never vnll. I'^But he is desirous of knowing how wa an going to reverse the Dred Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friends find a way to reverse the decision of tliat same court in favor of the constitutionality of the National Bank ? Did n't they find a way to do it so effectually that they have reversed it as com- pletely OS any decision ever was reversed, so far as its practical opemtion is concerned ? And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse the decision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlio's father — old 250 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Governor Carlin — had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary of State ? Did he not appeal to the " mobs/' as he calls them ? Did he not make speeches in the lobby to show how villanous that decision was, and how it ought to be overthrown ? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an Act passed by the Legislature to have it overthrown ? And did n't he himself sit down on that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones, — getting his name of "Judge" in that way, and no other? If there is a villany in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well about /low much villany it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court as our hon- orable friend Stephen A. Douglas. Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Bepublicans are not In the sense in which he argues, I never said it ; but I will tell you what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as the Demo- crats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to support it as such ; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood it" Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way iu which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision to be correct, I will remake that argu- ment if I have time to do so. Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right. The first thing you do is to swear you will support the Constitution and all rights guaranteed therein ; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold that neces- sary legislation for the support of the Constitution and constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury ? I ask every sensible man if that is not so ? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, nullify that constitutional right ? Does he mean to say that ? Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly ? Does he mean that ? The truth about the matter is this : Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squatter Spver- eignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing Sovereignty ^ — that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of " Sovereignty " that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully ? Has it not got down as thin as the homoeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death ? But at last, when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophi- cal proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 251 The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previous occasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from, at Charleston, says it only shows that I practised the deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that ? Judge Douglas had said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that same speech up north, — had made it at Ottawa ; made it in his hearing ; made it in the Abolition District, — in Lovejoy's District, — in the personal presence of Lovejoy himself, — in the same atmosphere exactly in which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation from the Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in " i^pt," as he calls it. It was down at Spring- field. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read it. [" Bead it, read it."] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in disposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a great deal to say about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the Declaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what he said. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that I sup- pose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves ; and he made a written reply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words : — " What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky f It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that ' men are created eqtial,* Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declara- tion^ and it is desirable in the original constnu^ion of society, and in organized socie- ties, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle." When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in new countries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keep that principle in view. Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negro wife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any middle ground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from' my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech, — in his speech of to-day, — and compare them over, and I am willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath would not be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell Judge 252 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Douglas again the facts upon which I " dared " to say they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these resolutions in the Illinois " State Eegister '* could not have been the result of accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery ; that it was a publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, and partly from the proceedings of a Convention at another place, — which showed that he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part of the resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false and fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that his friend Lanphier, who was editor of the *' Begister " at that time and now is, must have known how it was done. Now, whether Ae did it, or got some friend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all about it I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he had promised to investigate that matter. Does he now say he did not make that promise ? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it? I call upon him to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise ? That fraud has been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good ser- vice, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in his newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility ; and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show whei'e the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, and implied that he would teU us the result of his investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not ; and if he did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learned about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of the country show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton ; that Harris had the opportunity of learning it from him, i-ather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that matter. I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter I wish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistake in that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became so magnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there was in those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Is that true ? He said I had a hand in pass- ing them, in liis opening speech, — that I was in the Convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutions touch me at all ? It strikes me there is some difference between holding a man responsible for an act which he has not done, and holding him responsible for an act that he h^s done. You will judge whether there is any difference in the " spots.'* And he has taken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny ; and he has more capacity in that way than any other living man. Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw . the charge in regard to a AND STEPHEN A. DOUQLAa 253 conspimcy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. May it please his woi-ship, I will withdraw it wlien it is proven false on me as that was proven false on him, I will add a little more than that. I will withdmw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspimcy to nationalize slavery, and ho says he convinces me that this is all untrue because lUichanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not tlien got into the Supreme Court ; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never uttered it [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated aflirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling docs say I did, I tell you myself that / never said tJie " Democratic " oumers of Dred Scott got up tlie case. I have never pretended to know whether IVed Scott's owners were Dcmocmts, or Abolitionists, or Frce-soilers or Border llullians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott •^. is declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he tiad had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that decision ; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by that decision. lUit my time is out, and I can say no more. THE LAST JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON, October 15, 1858. SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. Ladies and Gentlemen: It is now nearly four months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and myself comn)enced. On the 16th of June the Re- ])ublican Convention assembled at Springfield and nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down what he understood to be the llepublican creed, and the platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were : First, that this government could not endure permanently divided into Free and Slave States, as our fiithers made it ; that they must all become free or all become slave ; all become one thing, or all become the other, — otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical lan- guage he used. His second proposition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision, urging as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the negroes of the rights and benefits of that clause in the Constitution of the United States which guarantees to the citizens of each State all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several States. On the 10th of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with 254 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the 11th of* July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length and roafliriuing the positions which ho had taken in his Springfield sixicch. In that Chicago si)eech ho even went further than he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with the white man. He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy and Codding and other Abolition lectui'ers had made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State ; to wit, that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free and equal, by divine law, also that negro equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived He insisted, in that speech, that the Declamtion of Independence included the negro in the clause asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the position that it did not include the negro, others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that all these ^^inctions between this man and that man, this mce and the other race, nufst be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declamtion of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal. The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we went before the jKioplc of the State. During the following seven i weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of the people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely to those three positions which he had taken, controverting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers made it, divided into Free and Slave States, conti-overting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision, and ! controverting his proposition that the Declamtion of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. I supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a distinct issue between us, and that the opposite positions we had taken upon them we would be willing to be held to in every part of the State. I never intended to waver one hair's breadth from that issue either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot i)r()claim my i)oliticid creed in the same terms, not only in tlio northern, but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern, but the Southern States, and wherever the American Hag waves over American soil, that then there must lie something wrong in that creed ; so long as we live under a common Constitution, so long as we live in a con- federacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for certain pur- poses, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in eveiy State and every section of that Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that this government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slan- der upon the immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our government can endure forever, divided into Free and Slave States as our fathers made it, — each State having the right to prohibit, abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 255 States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; and that right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants j and interests. Our fathei*s knew when they made the government thaf the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They knew that in a Eepublic as broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate, and interest, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws, — the policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question ; and the various States were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy of their neighbors. Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln and the Abolitionists of this day had prevailed when the Constitution was made, what would have been the result ? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln bad been a member of the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, and that when its members were about to sign that wonderful document, he had arisen in that Convention as he did at Springfield this summer, and, addressing him- self to the President, had said, " A house divided against itself cannot stand ; this government, divided into Free and Slave States cannot endure, they must all be free or all be slave ; they must all be one thing, or all the other, — otherwise, it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot continue to exist ;'* — suppose Mr. Lincoln had convinced that body of sages that that doctrine was sound, what would have been the result? Bemember that the Union was then composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding, and one free. Do you think that the one Free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured the abolition of slavery ? On the other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a constitutional pro- vision, on every foot of the American Eepublic forever ? You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had prevailed when the government was made, it would have established slavery as a permanent institution in all the States, whether they wanted it or not ; and the question for us to determine in Illinois now, as one of the Free States, is whether or not we are willing, having become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority which we would have resisted with our heart's blood had it been attempted on us when we were in a minority. How has the South lost her power as the majority section in this Union, and how have the Free States gained it, except under the operation of that principle which declares the right of the people of each State and each Territory to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way ? It was under that principle that slavery was abolished in New Hampshire, Ehode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania ; it was under that principle that one half of the slaveholding States became free : it was under that principle that the number of Free States increased until, from being one out of twelve States, we have grown to be the majority of States of the whole Union, with the power to control the House of Eepresentatives and Senate, and the power, consequently, to elect a President by Northern votes, without the aid of a Southern State. 256 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Having obtained this power under the operation of that great principle, are you now prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely because we have the power you will wage a war against the Southern States and their institutions until you force them to abolish slavery everywhere. After having pressed these arguments home on Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discussion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and let himself down. I there pro- pounded certain questions to him. Amongst others, I asked him whether he would vote for the admission of any more Slave States, in the event the people wanted them. He would not answer. I then told him that if he did not answer the question there, I would renew it at Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, knowing that the next joint discussion took place in Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my question in regard to no more Slave States in a mode which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, and accomplish the object he had in view. I will show you what his answer was. After saying that he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of '* no more Slave States,'* he declared : — " I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be exceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of having to pass upon that questiou. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there never would be another Slave State admitted into thi^ Union." Here permit me to remark, that I do not think the people will ever force him into a position against his will. He went on to say : — '' But I must add, in regard to this, that if slavery shall be kept out of the Terri- tory during the Territorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people should, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adopt a constitu- tion, if they should do the extraordinary thing of adopting a slave constitution un- influenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but we must admit it into the Union." That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfy the old line Whigs, com- posed of Kentuckians and Virginians, down in the southern part of the State. Now, what does it amount to ? I desired to know whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into the Union with slavery or not, as her people desired. He would not answer, but in a roundabout way said that if slavery should be kept out of a Territory during the whole of its Territorial existence, and then the people, when they adopted a State Constitution, asked admission as a Slave State, he supposed he would have to let the State cohie in. The case I put to him was an entirely different one. I desired to know whether he would vote to admit a State if Congress had not prohibited slavery in it during its Terri- torial existence, as Congress never pretended to do under Clay's Compromise measures of 1850. He would not answer, and I have not yet been able to get an answer from him. I have asked him whether he would vote to admit Nebraska if her people asked to come in as a State with a constitution recogniz- ing slavery, and he refused to answer. I have put the question to him with reference to New Mexico, and he has not uttered a word in answer. I have enumerated the Territories, one after another, putting the same question to him with reference to each, and he has not said, and will not say, whether, if elected to Congress, he will vote to admit any Territory now in existence with such a constitution as her people may adopt. He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot exist under this government, and answers it ; but he will not answer the question I put to him in connection with any of the Territories now in AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 257 existence. The contract we entered into with Texas when she entered the Union obliges us to allow four States to be formed out of the old State, and admitted with or without slavery, as the respective inhabitants of each may determine. I have asked Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint discussions whether he would vote to redeem that pledge, and he has never yet answered. He is as silent as the grave on the subject He would rather answer as to a state of the case which will never arise than commit himself by telling what he would do in a case which would come up for his action soon after his election to Congress. Why can he not say whether he is willing to allow the people of each State to have slavery or not as they please, and to come into the Union, when they have the requisite population, as a Slave or a Free State as they decide ? I have no trouble in answering the question. I have said every- where, and now repeat it to you, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State they have a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to form such a State, and I will let them come into the Union with slavery or without, as they determine. If the people of any other Territory desire slavery, let them have it If they do not want it, let them prohibit it. It is their business, not mine. It is none of our business in Illinois whether Kansas is a Free State or a Slave State. It is none of your business in Missouri whether Kansas shall adopt slavery or reject it. It is the business of her people, and none of yours. The people of Kansas have as much right to decide that question for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it for yourselves, or we in Illinois to decide it for ourselves. And here I may repeat what I have said in every speech I have made in Illinois, that I fought the Lecompton Constitution to its death, not because of the slavery clause in it, but because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said then in Congress, and I say now, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State, they have a right to have it If they wanted the Lecompton Constitution, they had a right to have it I was opposed to that constitution because I did not believe that it was the act and deed of the people, but, on the contrary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting in the name of the majority. When at last it was determined to send that constitu- tion back to the people, and, accordingly, in August last, the question of admission under it was submitted to a popular vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to one, thus showing conclusively that I was right when I said that the Lecompton Constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I hold that there is no power on earth, under our system of government, which has the right to force a constitution upon an unwilling people. Suppose that there had been a majority of ten to one in favor of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an Abolition President and an Abolition Administra- tion, and by some means the Abolitionists succeeded in forcing an Abolition Constitution on those slaveholding people, would the people of the South have submitted to that act for one instant ? Well, if you of the South would not have submitted to it a day, how can you, as fair, honorable, and honest men, insist on putting a slave constitution on a people who desire a Free State ? Your safety and ours depend upon both of us acting in good faith, and living up to that great principle which asserts the right of every people to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the Con- stitution of the United States. Most of the men who denounced my course on the Lecompton question objected to it, not because I was not right, but because they thought it expedient 8S 258 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN at that time, for the sake of keeping the party together, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic party to violate any one of its principles, out of policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our party unless we always do right, and trust the consequences to God and the people. I chose not to depart from principle for the sake of expediency on the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do it on that or any other question. But I am told that I would have been all right if I had only voted for the English bill after Lecompton was killed. You know a general pardon was granted to all political offenders on the Lecompton question, provided they would only vote for the English bilL I did not accept the benefits of that pardon, for the reason that I had been right in the course I had pursued, and hence did not require any forgiveness. Let us see how the result has been worked out. English brought in his bill referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the people, with the provision that if it was rejected, Kansas should be kept out of the Union untU she had the full ratio of population required for a member of Congress, — thus in effect declaring that if the people of Kansas would only consent to come into the Union under the Lecompton Con- stitution, and have a Slave State when they did not want it, they should be admitted with a population of 35,000 ; but that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon having just such a constitution as they thought best, and to desire admission as a Free State, then they should be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever Kansas has people enough for a Slave State she has people enough for a Free State. I was and am willing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever come into the Union until she has the full ratio of population for a member of Congress, provided that rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in the Senate last winter, but a majority of the senators would not agree to it ; and I then said to them, If you will not adopt the general rule, I will not consent to make an exception of Kansas. I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this govern- ment to throw the weight of Federal power into the scale, either in favor of the Free or the Slave States. Equality among all the States of this Union is a fundamental principle in our political system. We have no more right to throw the weight of the Federal Gk)vernment into the scale in favor of the slave- holding than the Free States, and last of all should our friends in the South consent for a moment that Congress should withhold its powers either way when they know that there is a majority against them in both Houses of Congress. Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters of the English bill stood up to their pledges not to admit Kansas until she obtained a population of 93,420 in the event she rejected the Lecompton Constitution ? How ? The newspapers inform us that English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with such population as she might have when she made application. We are informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the States where elections have recently been held was pledged against the English bill, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Now, if I had only done as these anti- Lecompton men who voted for the English bill in Congress, pledging them- selves to refuse to admit Kansas if she refused to become a Slave State until she had a population of 93,420, and then returned to their people, forfeited AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 259 their pledge, and made a new pledge to adroit Kansas at any time she applied, without regard to population, I would have had no trouble. You saw the whole power and patronage of the Federal Government wielded in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti-Lecompton men to Congress who voted against Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves to their people to disregard it. My sin consists in not having given a pledge, and then in not having afterward for- feited it. For that reason, in this State, every postmaster, every route agent, every collector of the ports, and every Federal oflBce-holder forfeits his head the moment he expresses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln and his Abolition associates. A Democratic Administration which we helped to bring into power deems it consistent with its fidelity to principle and its regard to duty to wield its power in this State in behalf of the Bepubli- can Abolition candidates in every county and every Congressional District against the Democratic party. All I have to say in reference to the matter is, that if that Administration have not regard enough for principle, if they are not sufi&ciently attached to the creed of the Democratic party, to bury forever their personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying out our glorious prin- ciples, I have. I have no personal difficulty with Mr. Buchanan or his Cabi- net. He chose to make certain recommendations to Congress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton question. I could not vote in favor of them. I had as much right to judge for myself how I should vote as he had how he should recommend. He undertook to say to me, " If you do not vote as I tell you, I will take off the heads of your friends." I replied to him, " You did not elect me. I represent Illinois, and I am accountable to Illinois, as my con- stituency, and to God ; but not to the President or to any other power on earth." And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is subversive of the principles of our Constitution. The Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is inde- pendent of the President In matters of legislation the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say to a senator, " Do this, or I will take oflf the heads of your friends," you convert this government from a republic into a despotism. When- ever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, " Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which will crush you," you destroy the independence of the representative, and convert him into a tool of Executive power. I resisted this invasion of the constitu- tional rights of a senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. I stand by the platform of the Democratic party, and by its organization, and support its nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good Democrats as I am. My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for the Demo- cratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand together, as it is to-day. 260 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN We find all sectional men giving up paat differences and continuing the one question of slavery ; and when we find sectional men thus uniting, we should unite to resist them and their treasonable designs. Such was the case in 1850» when Clay left the quiet and peace of his home» and again entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our head, welcomed Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been preserved by God for the timea He became our leader in that great fight, and we rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory in 1832 to put down nullification. Thus you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperilled. It was so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so far divided this countr}^ North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union ; Whigs and Democrats united in establishing the Compromise Mea- sures of that year, and restoring tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed on the joint action of the two parties. They rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit them- selves. You Whigs and we l3emocrats justified them in that principle. In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on the same principle. In the Kansas- Nebraska bill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it there- from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, 1854, and 1856. The Washington " Union," pretend- ing to be the organ of the Administration, in the number of the 5th of this month devotes three columns and a half to establish these propositions : first, that Douglas, in his Freeport speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska bill in 1854 ; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified the Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based upon the same principle as Clay's Com- promise Measures of 1850. The "Union" thus proved that Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he was never a Democrat. Is it not funny that I was never a Democrat ? There is no pretence that I have changed a hair's breadth. The " Union ** proves by my speeches that I explained the Compromise Measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I have not changed during the whole of that time. It has occurred to me that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was considered a pretty good Democrat It has occurred to me that in 1856, when I was exerting every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan, standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty good Democrat They now tell me that I am not a Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said on that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language : — ** The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 261 inajoritj, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he propounded to me before I commenced speaking. Of course, no man will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic organization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that James Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer speci- fically if you want a further answer, and say that while under the decision of the Supreme Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves are property like all other property, and can be carried into any Territory of the United States the same as any other description of property, yet when you get them there they are subject to the local law of the Territory just like all otiier property. You will find in a recent speech delivered by that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson Davis, at Bangor, Maine, that he took the same view of this subject that I did in my Fi*eeport speech. He there said: — '* If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such laws and police regulations as would give security to their prop>erty or to his, it would be rendered more or less valueless in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such pro- tection. In the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would follow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, from taking slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any community." You will also find that the distinguished Speaker of the present House of Eepresentatives, Hon. Jas. L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Nebraska bill in this same way in 1856, and also that great intellect of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same construction upon it in Congress that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to the support of the doctrine that if the people of a Territory want slavery, they have a right to have it, and if they do not want it, that no power on earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no institution, no law, no constitution, should be forced on an unwilling people contrary to their wishes ; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President Without that principle, he never would have been made Presi- dent of the United States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine, if I have to stand alone. I have resisted the blandishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have stood immovably for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by Southern hostility. I have defended it against the North and the South, and I will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever 262 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ita logical conclusions lead me. I say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. This government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded. But the Abolition i)arty really think that under the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal to the white man, and that negro equality is an inalienable right conferred by the Almighty, and hence that all human laws in violation of it are null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. They alluded to men of European birth and European descent, — to white men, and to none others, — when they declared that doctrine. I hold that this government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. But it does not follow, by any means, that merely because the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro race, and to all other dependent races, all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities which they can exercise consistently with the safety of society. Humanity requires that we should give them all these privileges ; Christianity commands that we should extend those privileges to them. The question then arises. What are those privileges, and what is the nature and extent of them ? My answer is, that that is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that reason, and became a Free State. We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy. For my part, I think it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in Missouri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise policy for you. If you choose to follow our example, very good ; if you reject it, still well, — it is your business, not ours. . So with Kentucky. Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If we do not like it we will keep away from it ; and if she does not like ours, let her stay at home, mind her own business, and let us alona If the people of all the States will act on that great principle, and each State mind its own business, attend to its own affairs, take care of its own negroes, and not meddle with its neighbors, then there will be peace between the North and the South, the East and the West, throughout the whole Union. Why can we not thus have peace ? Why should we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this country, to array the North against the South, and con- vert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sectional hobby ? How long is it since these ambitious Northern men wished for a sectional organization ? Did any one of them dream of a sectional party as long as the North was the weaker section and the South the stronger ? Then all were opposed to sectional parties ; but the moment the North obtained the majority in the House and Senate by the admission of California, and could elect a President without the aid of Southern votes, that moment ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 263 excite the North against the South, and make the people be governed in their votes by geographical lines, thinking that the North, being the stronger section, would outvote the South, and consequently they, the leaders, would ride into office on a sectional hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was very short. MR. LINCOLN'S REPLY. Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented by a laige portion of Judge Douglas's speech, — I mean that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and the present Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then told him to " Give it to them with all the power he had ; " and as some of them were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in alH)ut the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved upon the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend to him and to them what I then commended, — to prosecute the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again : " Go it, husband I — Go it, bear ! " There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the discussion, -^ although I do not consider it much of my business, any way. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency ; and he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly flghting for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compi*omise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has ? Has Douglas the exclnsive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all questions t Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself ? Is he to have an entire monopoly on that subject ? So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it I have heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, — that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner com- plained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained espe- cially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wi*ong when he says I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could not be one. I have 264 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN done no such thing ; and Judge Douglas, so persistently insisting that T have done so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true in regard to that matter ; and the means by which they may correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a negro could not be a citizen ; that they had done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I stated that, without making any com- plaint of it at alL I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case ; namely, that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not ; that they decided the further point that taking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitutional I mentioned these three things as making up the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken in connection with the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tend- ing to prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection. Out of this. Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my pur- pose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. His assertion that I made an " especial objection " (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact. Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is called garbling, — tak- ing portions of a speech which, when taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way. You have ^heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 265 struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. I said — and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his published speeches : — '^ It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this govemmeot. We had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more ; and having by necessity sub- mitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as our standard." Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and white people. Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes were not included in the Declaration of Independence : — " I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capa- city. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal, — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the righty so that the enforceme7U of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. " They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, — constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere." There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the Declara- tion of Independence upon a former occasion, — sentiments which have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it. At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did not include negroes in the tenn " all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the coun- try, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the astound- ing sentiment that the term " all men " in the Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way 84 266 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect " a self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entire party. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere to con- sider how they have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely difTerent from their former belief ; to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresistible current, — whither, they know not. In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man in Cliicago has got up a letter, addi*essed to the Chicago '* Times," to show, as he professes, that somebody Jiad said so before ; and he signs himself '* An Old Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the first place, I would say he was not an old line Whig. I am .somewhat acquainted with old line Whigs. I was with the old line Whigs from the origin to the end of that party ; I became pretty well acquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever else you could ascribe, to them. I know there never was one who bad not more sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some, man had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in the term '* all men " in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he produces ? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what ?ie offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of a speech from Henry Clay, — the part of t/ie speech of Henry Clay which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published. I have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended " Old Line Whig " at Chicago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro was included in the Declaration of Independenca Hear what Mr. Clay said : — ** And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky ? It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration ; and it is desirable, in t/ie original construction of society and in organ- ized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I appre- hend that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted among the members of the human race be practically enforced and curried out. There are portions, large portions, — women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, — tliat will always probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 267 ** That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the colo- nies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe that in making that declara- tion the States that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits 1 Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them ) Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expectation 1 To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council, — a fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." This is the eutire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the term " all men " in the Declaration. How does it do so ? In what way has it a tendency to prove that ? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced ; but be says it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well as in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own. Mr. Clay says, a little further on : — ** I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. But here they are, and the question is. How can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, tio man would he more strongly opposed than I should he to incorporating the instittUion of slavery among its elements." Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement on his part, but the declaration thut it is a great fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in societies already organized. But if I say a word about it ; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view ; if, in this " organized society," I ask to have the public eye turned upon it ; if I ask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be turned upon it, — forthwith I am villi- fied as you hear me to-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious example here in doing ? Have I done aught that I have not his authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territo- ries and societies, this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organ- ized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what h^ recog- nized as the great principle of free government ? And when this new principle — this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago — is brought forward, / combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as beiug one of the thousand things constantly done in 268 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but prop- erty, of the negro in all the States of this Union, But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay : — '* I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slaveiy. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here they are ; the question is, How they can best be dealt with ? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of slavery among its elements." The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have never sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other Slave State, shall emancipate her slaves ; I have proposed no such thing. . But when Mr. Clay says that in laying the foundations of societies in our Territories where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant — his license — for insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in such strong and emphatic language vhis most hateful to him. Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which T said " a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from memory. I used this language : — " We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this govern- ment cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, — old as well as new. Korth as well as South." That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely offen- sive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views upon it in brief. I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Is it not so ? When that Nebraska bill was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the " avowed object " of putting an end to the slavery agitation ? We were to have no more agitation in Congress ; it was all to be banished to the Territories. By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 269 Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business, for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the '* con- fident promise " of putting an end to the slavery agitation ? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this ** imbroglio," as they call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so ? I have asserted that under that policy that agitation *' has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." When was there ever a greater agi- tation in Congress than last winter ? When was it as great in the country as to-day ? There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The first object and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher degree of " sell'-govem- ment " is a question of fact to be determined by you in answer to a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its u$e, the people of Kansas had with this same right of " self-government " ? In its main policy and in its col- lateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till io^ay, I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way I thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go one way or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I have expressed that as my wish. I enter- tain the opinion, upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this government placed that institution where the public mind did rest in the belief that it w&s in the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provision that the source of slavery — the African slave-trade — should be cut off at the end of twenty years ? Why did they make provision that in all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever inhibited ? Why stop its spread in one direction^ and cut off its source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the course of ultimate extinction ? Again : the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases does the word '* slavery " or " negro race " occur ; but covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the language in regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade ? It runs in about this way : " The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight." 270 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there the lan- guage used is : — " Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by addinc:; to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, — three-fifths of all other persons.*' It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this " three-fifths " can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes. Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is said : "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escap- ing into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be dis- charged from such service or labor, but shaU be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." There again there is no mention of the word " negro " or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in the instrument, covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever, — when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us, — there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government expected and intended the institution of slav- ery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fatliers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itseli*, — was introduced by the framers of the Constitu- tion. The exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficulty — the absolute impossibility — of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the government made it, he asks a question based upon an assump- tion which is itself a falsehood ; and I turn upon him and ask him the ques- tion, when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon, that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution, — / turn upon him and> ask him why he caiild not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introduc- ing a nevj policy in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 271 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathere left it. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the Free and Slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the Constitution, did tJiey make any war f If we had no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy ? Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis ? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers. I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I pro- pose nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency. The quotation that I happened to make in that Springfield speech, that *' a house divided against itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offensive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries to show that variety in the domestic institutions of the different States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I shall very readily agree with him that it would be foolish for us to insist upon hav- ing a cranberry law here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a cranberry law in Indiana, wliere they have cranberries. I should insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we want no such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of the country, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and productions of a country, require sys- tems of law conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country. I understand quite as well as Judge Douglas tliat if we here raise a barrel of iiour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces com- merce, brings us together, and makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the different parts of this Union ; that instead of being a thing to " divide the house," — figuratively expressing the Union, — they tend to sustain it ; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold it up. But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between these things and this institution of slavery ? I do not see that there is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels over these things ? When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union ? We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the institution of slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones, telling us that the policy which has given peace to the 272 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN country heretofore, being returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office- seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. He thinks we want to get " his place," I supposa I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less so than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge Douglas. But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to this institution of slavery springs from office-seeking, from the mere ambition of politicians ? Is that the truth 7 How many times have we had danger from this question ? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. 60 back to the Nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this same slavery question. 60 back to the time of the Annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find that every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to dis- turb the general peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties them- selves. But does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles ? Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder ? What divided the gi*eat Methodist Church into two parts, North and South ? What has raised this constant disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago ? What has jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end ? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society, — in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life ? Is this the work of politicians ? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it ? If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you I will quit before they have half done so. But where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions, — I say, where is the philosophy or the statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it ? Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating, — that we are to care nothing about it ! I ask you if it is not a false philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about ? — a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about ? The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I agree with him very readily that the different States have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they please about it. Gar controversy with him AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 278 is in regard to the new Territories. We agree that when the States come in as States they have the right and the power to do as they please. We have no power as citizens of the Free States, or in our Federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the General Grovernment, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government to disturb it ; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the States. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them, — that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus popula- tion, if I may so express myself ? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there ? If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal right all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a Slave Territory, and by consequence a Slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a Free State were on equal ground ? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Demo- crats are there about here [" A thousand **] who have left Slave States and come into the Free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery ? [Another voice : " A thousand and one."] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it ? Where would you have found your Free State or Territory to go to ? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to? Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Terri- tories being in such a condition that white men may find a home, — may find some spot where they can better their condition ; where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over, — in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the Free and the Slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no founda- tion in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon every mind — is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Bepublican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which all their propo- 36 ^ 274 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN sitions radiate. Th^y look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong ; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, he treated as a wrong ; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a olicy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time, as being wrong. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them ; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obliga- tions thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery ? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us ? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threat- ened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery ? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery, — by spreading it out and making it bigger ? You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out^ lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong, — restrict- ing the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself " as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that ? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. Although you pre- tend to say so yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anything about it in the Free States, because it is not here. You must not say anything about it in the Slave States, because it is there. You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that vrUl disturb the security of " my place" There is no AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. ?! place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you sav yoozself it u a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief tha^ if the people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual emaocipaUoo on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in faror of it. Tou say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be ;dad V> mte it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself You all know that Fzaak Blafr and Gratz Brown, down there in St Louis, undertook to introduce that in Missouri They fought as valiantly as they could for the systesi of gxa± emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see suooeed. Now, I wiZ bring you to the test After a hard fight they were beaten, and when tbe news came over here, you threw up your hats and hurraJied/or Dcmuxnm. Mor; than that, take all the aigument made in favor of the system yo«i have pr^ posed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in tbe institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy carefully erdwitid it Even here to^y you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me beeasae I uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. Although Henry Claj could say he wished every slave in the United States was in the oountry of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come ^£ n" end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate tfae j merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it Try it by some of Judge Dou^iclas's arguments. He says he " don't care whether it is voted up or voted down " in the Territories. I do not care myself^ in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery ; but no man can loi^cally say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifiTerent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever com- munity wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say pe^^ple have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if tiiere is no dif- ference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical But if you insist that one is wrong and the other rights there is no use to institute a comparis^^n l>etween right aisd wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statut^j Ixxik, in tlie shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the sliaf^e it takes in conversation, or the shape it tab» in short maxiro-like argumenti», — it everywhere carefully exclodes the idea that there is anything wrong in it That is the real issue. Tliat is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Ju/lge Douglns and myself shall be silent It is the eternal strug^ b^ween tliese two principl/^ — right and wr^/ng — through- out the worid. They are ttie two f/riiiciples tliat have st/Kxl face to Cace from the beginning of time, ao^l will ever '*j)UiimiH U; Hiruiti^Ut, T>ie one is tlie common right of humanity, ati^J tlie //th«;r the divine right of kings. It is t}^ same principle in wliat^nrer stiafM? it develoDS iUtelf. It is Un^ same spirit that says, ^ You work an^l U^il ari/l earn bri^J, and I ^U eat iu" No matter in what shape it comes, wl»etlier from the rn//titb //f a king wii// seeks to bestri^Je 276 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quiucy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas, — that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures^ the real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to its perpetu- ation, — we can get out from among that class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its " ultimate extinction." Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed, its framers did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these days ; yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetuaL I now say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or without purpose. Judge Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the government expected to come to an end ere this, — and putting it upon Broohfs cotton-gin basis ; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. I understand I have ten minutes yet I will employ it in saying some- thing about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, uhzs a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court has made the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it ? He says it needs " police regulations/' and that admits of " unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Terri- tory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support ? Can he withhold it with- out violating his oath ? And, more especially, can he pass unfriendly legis- lation to violate his oath ? Why, this is a woTistrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 277 lawless a doctrine from the vxouth of any respectable man on earth, I do not / believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United . States. I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, — that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right," which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, — and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catch- ing niggers, — at least, I profess no taste for that job at alL Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law ? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Terri- tory, who believes it is a constitutiontd right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitu- tional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, iu spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be dnven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argu- ment by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after alL 278 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saying that there is not such an Abolitionist as I am in all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of Illinois believe that, he would not have much show for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists believe the truth of that statement, and his political back is broken. His first criticism upon me is the expression of his hope that the war of the Administration will be prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of this State with vigor. He wants that war pix>secuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it His hopes of success and the hopes of his party depend solely upon it. They have no chance of destroying the Democracy of this State except by the aid of Federal patronage. He has all the Federal office-holders here as his allies, running separate tickets against the Democmcy to divide the party, although the leaders all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. There is something really refreshing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the first war I ever knew him to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war that I ever knew him to believe to be just or constitutional. When the Mexican war was being waged, and the American army was surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust He thought it was not commenced on the right spot. When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies ; that it was a slander ; and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress wit)i him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought for- ward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it " Yes," said Lincoln, " I did." Thus he con- fessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, unneces- sary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very different thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought ; our citizens, who were .defending the honor of theit AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 279 country's flag, were surrouDaed by the daggers, the guns, and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he declared that the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Kepresentatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust ; and Ashmun's resolution, Corwin's speech, and lincoln's vote were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own countiy in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And, in my opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it. Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he ? Have you read General Singleton's speech at Jacksonville ? You know that General Singleton was for twenty-five years the confidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that if the Whigs did not take up Genenil Taylor, the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that speech urged as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle, and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect of cutting Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig ! General Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig. What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln ever advocate ? He was in Congress in 1848-9, when the Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the foundation of the Republic from its centre to its circumference. It was that agitation that brought Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon to quell ? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Sewai*d, Chase, Giddings, and 280 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN other Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do some- thing to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the moment he arrived, as the man for the occa- sion. We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in Nullification time rallied under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties afterward. And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you that the slavery question was the only thing that ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did not Nullification once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832 ? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? Did not disunion raise its monster head during the last war with Great Britain ? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff ques- tion, and once on the slavery question. His argument, therefore, that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the whole list with the same effect I say that all these laws are local and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should be left to each State and each Territory to manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in that principle, there never would be any danger to the peace and harmony of the Union. Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my prop- osition, that our fathers made this government divided into Free and Slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it ? It is true that they did not establish slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of them ; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which were slave and one free, they agreed to form a government uniting them together as they stood, divided into Free and Slave States, and to guarantee forever to each State the right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. Having thus made the government, and conferred this right upon each State forever, I assert that this government can exist as they made it, divided into Free and Slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished every- where. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own ; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, — not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men, for all the negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us maintain this government on the principles that our fathers made it, recognizing the right of each State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln says that when our fathers made this government they did not look forward to the state of things now existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was wrong; and he quotes Brooks of South Carolina to prove that our fathers then thought that probably slavery AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 281 would be abolished by each State acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did ; suppose they did not foresee what has occurred, — does that change the principles of our government ? They did not probably foresee the tele- graph that transmits intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the rail- roads that now form the bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the government 7 Our fathers, I say, made this government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come. Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not at all desire to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him, then, how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists ? He says that he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the inference is, then, that unless they make Free States out of them he will keep them out of the Union ; for, mark you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.) ; he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise Measures on the slavery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories, and thus force them all to become Free States, surrounding the Slave States with a cordon of Free States, and hem- ming them in, keeping the slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on which they live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as the French general exterminated the Algerines when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the name of humanity and Christianity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the mornl sense of justice and to the Christian feeling of the com- munity to sustain him. He says that any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle it was that overthrew the divine right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these Colonies rebel because the British Parliament had no right to pass laws concerning our property and domestic and private institutions without our consent ? We demanded that the British Government should not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body passing them ; and this the British Government insisting on doing, we went to war, on the principle that the Home Government should not control and govern distant colonies without giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to govern the Territories without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass laws controlling their property and domestic concerns without their consent and against their will. Thus, be asserts for his party the identical principle asserted by George IIL and the Tories of the Revolution. 86 282 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democ- racy or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan in his Letter of Accept- ance), have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves, being property, stand on an equal footing with other property, and consequently that the owner has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he has any other, sub- ject to the same conditions. Suppose that one of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand dollars' worth of liquors to Kansaa He has a right to go there, under that decision; but when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in force, and what can he do with his property after he gets it there ? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it ; it is subject to the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Blinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which 1 have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want t^e institution of slavery, they will protect and encourage it; but if they do not want it, they will withhold that protection, and the absence of locid legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibi- tion. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as they please : if they want slaveiy, let them have it ; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it. My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this great fun- damental principle, there will be peace between the North and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, on all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not to interfere with the people of each State. What right have we to interfere with slavery any more than we have to inter- fere with any other question ? He says that this slavery question is now the bone of contention. Why ? Simply because agitators have combined in all the Free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one half of the Union to make war upon the railroad system of the other half ? They would thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon any other peculiar institution of the opposite section, and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 283 SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Columbus, Ohio, September, 1859. Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State, — an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men ; and, remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will com- mence with very moderate expectations ; and perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate degree. Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have Ssen somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech ; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the " Ohio States- man " newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in which, among other statements, I find the following : — ** In debating with Senator Douglas daring the memorable contest of last fall, Mr* Lincoln declared in favor of negro sufifrage, and attempted to defend that vile concep- tion against the Little Giant." I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced, — it furnishes me an introductory topic ; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken ; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show con- clusively that it !s so ; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very " memorable " debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used -the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued 8is follows : — *' Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in ray judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, T, as well as Judge 284 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Douglas, am in fayor of the race to which I heloDg haying the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrarji hut I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the hread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equals and the equal ofJudgt D . as this. The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently con- v!^. .^: servative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government -.v *'< / to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain / « it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked forward to. The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now the revival of the African slave-trade, or the passage of a Congressional slave- code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we are too strong for them ; but they will be upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed ofT. They are not now the chief danger to the purpose of the Republican organization ; but the most imminent danger 286 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN that now threatens that purpose is that insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. While it does not propose to revive the African slave-trade, nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. I say this "Douglas Popular Sovereignty;" for there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between that article and a genuine Popular Sovereignty. I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of "genuine popular sovereignty," in the abstract, would be about this : That^^i^h man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things ,' which exclusively concern him. Applied to government, this principle would ! be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. I understand that this government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon this principle ; and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I have any war to make upon that principle. Now, what is Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty ? It is, as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object Applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this : If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the families of communities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of States as parent of all, — however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied. He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His explana- tions explanatory of explanations explained are interminable. The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of his long series of explanations is his great essay in '* Harper's Magazine." I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough investigation of his argument as there made and presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time here in drawing your attention to certain points in it Such of you as may have I'ead this document will have perceived that the Judge, early in the document quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, without nam- ing them, but who can readily be recognized as being Governor Seward of New York and myself. It is true that exactly fifteen months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a sentiment upon this subject, and in such a manner that it should get into print, that the public might see it beyond the circle of my hearers ; and my expression of it at that time is the quotation that Judge Douglas makes. He has not made the quotation with accuracy, but justice to him requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate not to change its sense. The sense of that quotation condensed is this : that this slavery element is a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall probably not have perfect peace in this country with it until it either masters the free principle in our government, or is so far mastered by the free principle as for the public AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 287 mind to rest in the belief that it is going to its end. This sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no great distance of time, perhaps in differ- ent language, and in connection with some collateral ideas, expressed by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed by the expres- siou of that sentiment that he has constantly, I believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, been referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as well as in the copyright essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the expression of that sentiment In other words, I shall not stop to say all that might properly be said upon this point, but I only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two points upon it. If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that Judge Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Govern- ment of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Hevolution ; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever since the Eevolution. Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of the government, but we know from Judge Douglas himself that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five generations of men, — counting thirty years to a generation. Now, it would seem to me that it might have occurred tx) Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned his atten- tion to these facts, that there was something in the nature of that thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, before I leave it From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon this question, — the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty years in which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they foUowed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole Union was acquies- cing in it The whole country looked forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when a policy had been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just and right-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end, and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I think Judge Douglas might have perceived that too ; and whether he did or not, it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and else* where, to consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If he had looked at these two facts, — that this matter has been an element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among this people, and that the only com- parative peace we have had about it was when that policy prevailed in this government, which he now wars upon, — he might then, perhaps, have been brought to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen months ago, — that " a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, I do not expect the Union to dissolve ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery wiU arrest the further spread of it, and place it 288 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- mate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South." That was my sentiment at that time. In connection with it, I said : ** We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was inaugurated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of the policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." I now say to you here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy of Judge Douglas — that Popular Sovereignty of his — for quieting the slavery question was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I uttered that senti- ment ; and I call upon you and all other right-minded men to say whether that fifteen months have belied or corroborated my words. While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among us — as I* believe it is — is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Governor Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because h^^Teflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe,fbecause Gov- ernor Seward or I uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know scarcely anything about the man ; but I will say this much of him : Of all the anti-Lecompton Democ- racy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsing anything else he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers for Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for Hickman.] Another point in the copyright essay to which I would ask your attention is rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, than from any express declaration of it at any point. It is a general feature of that document, and, indeed, of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of this question, that the Ter- ritories of the United States and the States of this Union are exactly alike ; that there is no difference between them at all ; that the Constitution applies to the Territories precisely as it does to the States ; and that the United States Government, under the Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not do in a Territory, and what it must do in a State it must do in a Temtory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of the case ? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty, but is it tnie ? Let us consider. What does it depend upon ? It depends altogether upon the proposition that the States must, without the interference of the General Government, do all those things that pertain exclusively to themselves, — that are local in their nature, that have no connection with the General Govern- ment After Judge Douglas has established this proposition,' which nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence as the question would be to me whether my neighbor should raise homed cattle or plant tobacco ; that there is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents ; that when a new Territory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, like the Canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 289 thereafter ; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon anybody save the few men who first plant upon the soil ; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the family of communities com- posing these States, nor any way endangers the General Grovernment. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very well known fact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence, except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, according to his Popular Sovereignty, the General Government may give to the Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the other chief men to govern them, but they must not touch upon this other question. Why ? The ques- tion of who shall be governor of a Territory for a year or two, and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil, or an act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a question of vast national magnitude ; it is so much opposed in its nature to locality that the nation itself must decide it : while this other matter of planting slavery upon a soil, — a thing which, once planted, cannot be eradicated by the succeeding millions who have as much right there as the first comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite difficulty and a long struggle, — he considers the power to prohibit it as one of these little local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a word about ; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there. Take these two things and consider them together, present the question of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a question of who shall be Governor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there a man here, — is there a man on earth, — who would not say the governor question is the little one, and the slavery question is the great one ? I ask any honest Demo- crat if the small, the local, and the trivial and temporary question is not. Who shall be governor ? While the durable, the important, and the mischievous one is, Shall this soil be planted with slavery? This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind from his peculiar structure. I suppose the institution of slavery really looks small to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash upon his back would hurt him, but a lash upon anybody else's back does not hurt him. That is the build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the matter of slavery in this unim- portant light Judge Douglas ought to remember, when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people, that while he is put up in that way, a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat, — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true ; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contempla- tion of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, " I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just I '* We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country, — danger of the avenging justice of God, — in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah ; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us. 37 290 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the Territories and States alike in all thin^, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no diflerence between them, why not make the Territories States at once ? What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view ? Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union at once ? They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question, — the largest and most important with which they could possibly deal : what could they do by coming into the Union that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it ? Oh, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific duties on foreign goods, or live oak timber contracts, — they are not fit to decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their import, — but they are fit, " from the jump," to decide this little negro question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain ; I occupy too much time on this head, and I pass oh. Near the close of the copyright essay, the Judge, I think, comea very near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when I commenced these remarks, that I would read from that article, but I now believe I will : — " This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their provisional legislatures, where their repre- sentation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity." When the Judge saw that putting in the word " slavery ** would contradict his own history, he put in what he knew would pass as synonymous with it, — " internal polity." Whenever we find tJiat in one of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner ; and I can tell you the reason. It would be too bald a contradiction to say slavery ; but '* internal polity " is a general phrase, which would pass in some quarters, and which he hopes will pass with the reading community for the same thing. " This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and peace- ful community, and not in the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and capable of perform- ing its various functions and duties, — a fact to be ascertained and determined by " — who do you think ? Judge Douglas says " By Congress ! " " Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not affect the principle." Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular Sovereignty, by his own words, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the public domain in violation of law. We have his words for that. When it does pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at ten thousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to know what is to be done with the nine thousand ? Are they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land, in violation of law ? And if so treated and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand ? If they were not driven AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 291 out, but remained there as trespassers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they establish slavery there ? No ; the Judge says Popular Sov- ereignty don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it then ? No ; Popular Sovereignty don't pertain to them then. I would like to know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition the people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten thousand ? But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question as to when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed into a regular organized community is to be decided " by Congress." Judge Douglas says so. Well, gentlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all the Southern- ers want That is what all those who are for slavery want. They do not want Congress to prohibit slavery from coming into the new Territories, and they do not want Popular Sovereignty to hinder it ; and as Congress is to say when they are ready to be organized, all that the South has to do is to get Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off until they are ready to be admitted as a State, and the South has all it wants in taking slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that we now have, or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash of the pen, is at last put in the power of Congress ; for if they do not have this Popular Sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it at last does not come from Congress ? If, at last, it amounts to anything at all, Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for your reflection than for comment. After all that is said, at last, by a dash of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, and be puts the whole question under the control of Congress. After fighting through more than three hours, if you undertake to read it, he at last places the whole matter under the control of that power which he had been contending against, and arrives at a result directly contrary to what he had been laboring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of Congress. There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our Bevolutionary times were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty, and the other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this Popular Sovereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to enter into a detailed examination of the historical statements he has made. I have the impression that they are inaccurate in a great many instances, — sometimes in positive statement, but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so to any very great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination of his historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle, — that if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period of time possible, and I came to that fence, and saw by a calcula- tion of my known strength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider whether I could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history contained in his essay where he endeavored to link the men of the.Revolution to Popular Sovereignty. It only requires an effort to leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely success- ful If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there from documents of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that the people of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in their own way, that the British Government should not interfere ; that at one time they struggled with the British Government to be permitted to exclude the African slave- trade, — if not directly, to be permitted to exclude it indirectly, by taxation 292 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN sufficient to discourage and destroy it From these and many things of this sort, Judge Douglas argues that they were in favor of the people of our own Territories excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there if they wanted to, doing just as they pleased from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however his history may apply ; and whatever of his argu- ment there may be that is sound and accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these men did themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the Territories, does it not end the whole thing ? If, after all this labor and effort to show that the men of the Eevolution were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories, we can show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt with it, we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it It is not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought about it It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one impor- tant omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromise was established, and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the Act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out But this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the Bevolution. There was another part of our political history, made by the very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, 1 believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who uve in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it ; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost But three years after that, the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government ; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provi- sion excluding slavery was inserted and passed unanimottsli/, or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you were a Territory, then an enabling Act was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State Government, provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87. When you framed your constitution and presented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject will show that, " whereas you had formed a constitution that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 293 *87/' therefore, you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to when- ever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congi-ess always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon this subject they traced their course by that Ordinance of *87. When they admitted new States, they advertised them of this Ordinance, as a part of the legislation of the country. They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 throughout the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was made by the Congress of the Confederation ; and one of the first Acts of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new officers under the Con- stitution, in the place of the old ones, who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and allowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of *87. This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his third term, and who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his own hands, pretending to give a truthful and accurate histoiy of the slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history, — the most important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for any con- fidence in his statements who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part and controlling feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed ? But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this most remarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of non-intervention by the government in the question of slavery in the Territories, while history shows that they decided, in the cases actually brought before them, in exactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung to freedom. And now he asks the com- munity to believe that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have the naked history that they themselves dealt with 294 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN this very subject-matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them to convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them. I say, again, if Judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves, they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a consideration of his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that they understood the principles of government, but misapplied them, — that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of this principle. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands their principles better than they did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the community and try to convince them of this, but he has no right to attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of his great principle. There are two ways of establishing a proposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason, and the other is, to show that great men in former times have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority. Now, if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular sovereignty, — the right of one man to make a slave of another, without any right in that other, or any one else to object, — demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions, — there is no objection. But when he comes forward, seeking to carry a principle by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly repudiate that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted to do it I see, in the Judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words : " Our fathers, when they formed this government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than, we do now." That is true ; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And now. Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject better than we do now, and with that better understanding they acted better than you are trying to act now. I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that "memorable debate" between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the Judge thought fit to commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, " Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution ? " He answered that they could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories, notwith- standing the Dred Scott decision. There was something about that answer that has probably been a trouble to the Judge ever since. The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United States a right to carry his slaves into the United States Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was right, and saying, too. that the people of the Territory could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it, all the chaff was fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity, — no less than that a thing AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 295 may he lawfully driven away from where it has a lawful right to he. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition, — that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the Judge could n't help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it ; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, that the Judge does not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. lie does not say so in the copyright essay ; he did not say so in the speech that he made here ; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position ; but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd position I have stated, by changing his language entirely. What he says now is something different in language ; and we will consider whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other property. He does not say the people can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. The language is different; we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about ; it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him; but neither of these things is the same as ''controlling him as other property." That would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him, " as other property ; " but please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want more than this? What do they really want, other than that slavery, being in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property? If they want anything else, I do not comprehend it I ask your attention to this, first, for the purpose of pointing out the change of ground the Judge has made ; and, in the second place, the importance of the change, — that that change is not such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all. I know the Judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to deiith, as you might, in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so nmch that he would die. But when you come to legislative control, tliere is something more to be attended to. I have no doubt, myself, that if the Territories should under- take to control slave property as other property, — that is, control it in such a way tliat it would be the most valuable as property, and make it bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as property, — really deal with it as property, — the Supreme Court of the United States will say, "God speed you, and amen." But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if the Territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory, or to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation un- constitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already decided, except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between the words " dicta " and "decision." They have already decided a negro cannot be made free by Territorial legislation. 296 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN What is that Dred Scott decision ? Judge Douglas labors to show that it is one thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a long opinion, but it is all embodied in this short statement : " The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man of his property, without due process of law ; the right of property in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution : therefore, if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory, that is depriving him of his property without due process of law, and is unconstitu- tional" There is the whole Dred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so itself. Congress cannot confer any power to do so ; and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely decided against. It is a foregone conclusion by that court Now, as to this indirect mode by ** unfriendly legislation,'* all lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be tolerated for a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation to control this property, as property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained ; but any legislation driving slave prop- erty out, or destroying it as property, directly or indirectly, will most assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional. Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other prop- erty, then it follows logically that every one who swears to support the Con- stitution of the United States must give that support to that property which it needs. And if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people to control it as other property, then it cdso carries it into the States, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty, I would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, and if it were not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made it better than he has made it since. There is, however, this difference. I say now, and said then, there is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is the right of the slave- holder to take his slave and hold him in the Territory ; and saying this, Judge Douglas himself admits the conclusion. He says if that is so, this consequence will follow; and because this consequence would follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be that way, — " that would spoil my Popular Sover- eignty ; and it cannot be possible that this great principle has been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It might be, if it were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug." Another feature of the Judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is, an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations of negatives ; that the Constitution does not affirm anything as expounded by the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of power — a total absence of power — in reference to the Territories. It seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do anything in relation to this matter in the Territories. I know the opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power ; but that is, unfortunately, not all it states : for the Judges add that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop at saying that the right of property in a slave is recognized in the Constitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but says it is AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 297 affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to saying that it is embodied and so woven in that instrumeut that it cannot be detached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is part of the Constitution. Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that decision to be altogether negative, when the express language at the vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this decision does not merely carry slavery into the Territories, but by its logical conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that it shall be the supreme law of the land, — I do not quote the language, — any coustitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, any State constitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law of the land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of that supreme law, and there is no escape from it In my judgment there is no avoiding that result, save that the American people shall see that constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is construed in that decision. They must take care that it is more faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded. I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks I said that this insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty is the measure that now threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent slavery from being nationalized in the United States. I propose to ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in affirmance of that statement. Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle ; extend and apply that principle elsewhere ; and consider where it will lead you. I now put this proposition, that Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty applied will reopen the African slave-trade; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in which you can turn the subject or look at it The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them ; and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction between the two things, — to show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful ; to show, on original principles, that one is better or worse than the other ; or to show, by the Con- stitution, that one differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that there is no constitutional provision against people taking slaves into the new Territories, and I tell him that there is equally no constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exer- cise of popular sovereignty, ought to do as they please about that thing, and have slaves if they want them ; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a distinction. I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which, without stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of the laws against the African slave-trade. And why ? He then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his popular sovereignty in the Territories. What is that reason ? "The abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitu- 88 298 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN tion I " I deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Constitution. No man can put his finger on anything in the Constitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere barren assertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinction between the revival of the African slave-trade and his ** great principle." At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was expected that the slave-trade would be abolished. I should assert and insist upon that, if Judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories, and I can show by history that in regard to these two things public opinion was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was more done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery than was ever done to abolish the foreign slave- trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I say again that at the time of the formation of the Constitution, public expectation was that the slave-trade would be abolished, but no more so than the spread of slavery in the Territories should be restrained. They stand alike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by public opinion, showing that it was more committed against the spread of slavery in the Territories than against the foreign slave-trade. Compromise I What word of compromise was there about it ? Why, the public sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade ; but there was at the time a very great commercial interest involved in it, and extensive capital in that branch of trade. There were doubtless the incipient stages of improvement in the South in the way of farming, dependent on the slave- trade, and they made a proposition to Congress to abolish the trade after aUow- ing it twenty years, — a sufficient time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be transferred to other channels. They made no provision that it should be abolished in twenty years; I do not doubt that they expected it would be, but they made no bargain about it The public sentiment left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the history of those times in favor of that matter being a com- promise of the Constitution. It was the public expectation at the time, manifested in a thousand ways, that the spread of slavery should also be restricted. Then I say, if this principle is established, that there is no wrong in slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, — is a matter of dollars and cents, a sort of question as to how they shall deal with brutes, — that between us and the negro here there is no sort of question, but that at the South the ques- tion is between the negro and the crocodile. That is alL It is a mere matter of policy ; there is a perfect right, according to interest, to do just as you please, — when this is done, where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have formed public opinion for the slave trade. They will be ready for Jeff. Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company to sound the bugle for the revivfid of the slave-trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured over the Free States, while we shall be here tied down and helpless and run over like sheep. It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea, to say to men who want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to that party, and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to it, but nevertheless hate slavery, that Douglas's popular sovereignty is as good a way as any to oppose slavery. They allow themselves to be persuaded easily, in accordance with their previous dispositions, into this belief, that it is about as good a way of AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 299 opposing slavery as any, and we can do that without straining our old party ties or breaking up old political associations. We can do so without being called negro worshippers. We can do that without being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are so readily thrown out in place of argument where no argument can be found. So let us stick to this popular sovereignty, — this insidious popular sovereignty. Now let me call your attention to one thing that has resdly happened, which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion, this course of preparation for the revival of the slave-trade, for the Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carry slavery into the Free States. Did you ever, five years ago, hear of anybody in the world sajdng that the negro bad no share in the Declaration of National Inde- pendence ; that it did not mean negroes at all ; and when *' all men " were spoken of, negroes were not included ? I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon paper by any living being anywhere. I have been unable at any time to find a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known of anybody saying so five years ago. But last year there was not a Douglas popular sovereign in Illinois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of Independence did not mean negroes at all ? I do not know how this is ; I have not been here much ; but I presume you are very much alike everywhere. Then I suppose that all now express the belief that the Declaration of Independence never did mean negroes. I call upon one of them to say that he said it five years ago. If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you, — and a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro, in your estima- tion, from the rank of a man to that of a brute. They are taking him down, and placing him, when spoken of, among reptiles and crocodiles, as Judge Douglas himself expresses it. Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change"? Public opinion in this country is everything. In a nation like ours, this popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already wrought a change in the public mind to the extent I have stated. There is no man in this crowd who can contradict it. Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as anybody, I ask you to note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to deal with the negro everywhere as with the brute. If public sentiment has not been debauched alreetdy to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction is all that is wanting ; and this is constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious popular sover- eignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripen- ing under these teachings, will be ready for all these things, and you will receive and support, or submit to, the slave-trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave-code enforced in our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart of the free North. This, I must say, is but carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay, — many, many years ago, — I believe more than thirty years, — when he told an audience that if they would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must go back to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon which thundered its annual joyous return on the Fourth of July ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the love of liberty : but until they did these things, and others 800 DEBATES BETWEEN ABUAHAM LINCOLN ' eloquently enumerated by him, they could not repress all tendencies to ultimate emancipation. I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these popular sover- eigns are at this work, blowing out the moral lights around us ; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute ; that the Declaration has nothing to do with him ; that he ranks with the crocodile and the reptile ; that man, with body and soul, is a matter of dollars and cents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio Eepublicans, or Democrats, if there be any present, the serious con- sideration of this fact that there is now going on among you a steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject With this, my friends, I bid you adieu. SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, At Cincinnati^ Ohio, September, 1859. My FELLOW-CniZENS of the State of Ohio : This is the first time in my life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this. I therefore — though I am no longer a young man — make this appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But I have found that when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and go at something else. I understand that you have had recently with you my very distinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois, and I understand, without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) of seeing a report of the speech that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that Judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had never before hea^ it, that I had once in my life declared it as my opinion that this government cannot " endure permanently, half slave and half free ; that a house divided against itself cannot stand,** and, as I had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall, that I did not expect the Union to be dissolved ; but that I did expect that it would cease to be divided, that it would become all one thing, or all the other, that either the opposition of slavery would arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind would rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction, or the friends of slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful in all the States, old or new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago, express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresented my purpose in the expression of that opinion. I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he did so here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in different language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor Seward of New York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced them ; that he tried to point out that there was something couched in this opinion which led to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions of the various States of the Union, in utter disregard of the different States, which in their nature would AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 801 seem to require a variety of institutions and a variety of laws, conforming to the dififerenccs in the nature of the different States. Not only so, I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of war between the Free and Slave States, — that it was the sounding to the onset of continual war between the different States, the Slave and Free States. This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe, the 9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next evening, I made some reply to it I informed him that many of the inferences he drew from that expression of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose entertained by me, and in so far as he should ascribe these inferences to me, as my purpose, he was entirely mistaken; and in so far as he might argue that whatever might be my purpose, actions, conforming to my views, would lead to these results, he might argue and establish if he could ; but, so far as purposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me. When I made that reply to him, when I told him, on the question of declaring war between the difierent States of the Union, that I had not said that I did not expect any peace upon this question until slavery was exter- minated ; that I had only said I expected peace when that institution was put where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction ; that I believed, from the organization of our government until a very recent period of time, the institution had been placed and con- tinued upon such a basis ; that we had had comparative peace upon that question through a portion of that period of time, only because the public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and that when we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposed we should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now assure you, that I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution of slavery, where it exists. I believe we have no power, under the Constitution of the United States, or rather under the form of government under which we live, to interfere with the institution of slavery, or any other of the institutions of our sister States, be they Free or Slave States. I declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists, through the instrumentality of the General Government, or any other instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. I accidentally used this expression : I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery I So, upon the first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me, he passed by the whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized upon the particular expression of mine that I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery. " Oh, no," said he, " he [Lincoln] won't enter into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery, — he is too prudent a man to do such a thing as that ; he only means that he will go on to the line between the Free and Slave States, and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. He means to do them all the harm he can, to disturb them all he can, in such a way as to keep his own hide in perfect safety." Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a very dignified or very logical argument ; but so it was, I had to get along with it as well as I could. It has occurred to me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over the line at the people on the other side of the line into a Slave State, and pur- pose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about the best chance I 802 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN shall ever have. I should not wonder that there are some Kentuckians about this audience ; we are close to Kentucky ; and whether that be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and, by speaking distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me on the other side of the river. For that reason I propose to address a portion of what I have to say to the Kentuckians. I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what they call, as I understand it, a " Black Bepublican." I think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. While I say this for myself, I say to you Kentuckians that I understand you differ radically with me upon this proposition; that you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad differ- ence between us, I do not pretend, in addressing myself to you Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; that would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at Charleston, my distinguished friend Jadge Douglas. In all that there is a difference between you and him, I understand he is sincerely for you, and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. I will try to demonstrate that proposition. Understand, now, I say that I believe he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for yourselves. What do you want more than anything else to make successful your views of slavery, — to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuate the nationality of it ? What do you want more than anything else ? What is needed absolutely ? What is indispensable to you ? Why 1 if I may be allowed to answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the North, — it is to retain support and strength from the Free States. If you can get this support and strength from the Free States, you can succeed. If you do not get this support and this strength from the Free States, you are in the minor- ity, and you are beaten at once. If that proposition be admitted, — and it is undeniable, — then the next thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this nation, is the only man that affords you any hold upon the Free States ; that no other man can give you any strength in the Free States. This being so, if you doubt the other branch of the proposition, whether he is for you, — whether he is really for you, as I have expressed it, — I propose asking your attention for a while to a few facts. The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think slavery is wrong, and ought not to be outspread ; and you think it is right, and ought to be extended and perpetuated. [A voice, " Oh, Lord."] That is my Ken- tuckian I am talking to now. I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. In the first place, we know that in a government like this, in a government of the people, where the voice of all the men of the country, substantially, enters into the execution — or administration, rather — of the government, — in such a government, what lies at the bottom of all of it is public opinion. I lay down the proposition, that Judge Douglas is not only the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, and support in the North, but that he constantly moulds public opinion to your ends; that in every AND STEPHEN A. DOUQLAS. 803 possible way he can, he constantly moulds the public opinion of the Noi*th to your ends ; and if there are a few things in which he seems to be against you, — a few things which he says that appear to be against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you would like to have him say, — you ought to remember that the saying of the one, or the forbearing to say the other, would lose his hold upon the North, and, by consequence, would lose his capacity to serve you. Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your attention to the fact — for a well-established fact it is — that the Judge never says your insti- tution of slavery is wrong ; he never says it is right, to be sure, but he never says it is wrong. There is not a public man in the United States, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, at some time in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or wrong ; but Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He leaves himself at perfect liberty to do all in your favor which he would be hindered from doing if he were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he takes all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the North, opposed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right. This you ought to set down to his credit. You ought to give him full credit for this much, little though it be, in comparison to the whole which he does for you. Some other things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the floor of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I understand, a great many times, that he does not care whether slavery is " voted up or voted down." This again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would reason upon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong ; for a man may say, when he sees nothing wrong in a thing, that he does not care whether it be voted up or voted down, but no man can logically say that he cares not whether a thing goes up or goes down, which to him appears to be wrong. You therefore have a demonstration in this that to Judge Douglas's mind your favorite insti- tution, which you would have spread out and made perpetual, is no wrong. Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis, in Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there distinctly told the people that there was a " line drawn by the Almighty across this continent, on the one side of which the soil must always be cultivated by slaves ; " that he did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, but that there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to that proposition again : that there is one portion of this continent where the Almighty has designed the soil shall always be cultivated by slaves ; that its being cultivated by slaves at that place is right ; that it has the direct sympathy and authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these Northern audiences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the other side of the Ohio ; whenever you can get them, in pursuance of Douglas's views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make the other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is right on that side of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have that property on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when by any means it escapes over here it is wrong to have constitutions and laws " to devil " you about it So Douglas is moulding the public opinion of the North, first to say that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio River, and hence to say that that which is right there is not wrong here, and that all laws and constitutions here, recognizing it as being wrong, are themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed and abrogated. He will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have laws against 804 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, and therefore you have constitu- tions and laws against it. Let us attend to that argument for a little while, and see if it be sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned sugar-cane, and you won't raise that long), but they do raise it in Louisiana. You don't raise it in Ohio, because you can't raise it profitably, because the climate don't suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana, because there it is profitabla Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery question : that they do have slaves there, because they are profitable ; and you don't have them here, because they are not profitable. If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there, then, anything in the Constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar-cane ? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law ? Surely not i No man desires to raise suga'N cane in Ohio, but if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that forbids his doing so ; and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will have reached the conclusion that although slavery is not profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, it is wrong to him not to let him have it. In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about which you and I differ. In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. I believe it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. Let me state that again : five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any man who ever knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as five years ago, I will be obliged to him now or at a subse- quent time to show it. If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact : that within the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this question, has got his entire party, so far as I know, without exception, to join in saying that the negro has no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there be now in all these United States one Douglas man that does not say this, I have been unable upon any occasion to scare him up. Now, if none of you said this five years ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter that you Ken- tuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern public senti- ment upon that question. Of what tendency is that change ? The tendency of that change is to bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of, the negro is not meant ; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone are con- templated. That change in public sentiment has already degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers from the condition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the condition of a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credit for this. That is the largest pos- sible stride that can be made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery. A voice : Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians ! Mr. Lincoln : I beg permission to speak as I please. In Kentucky perhaps, in many of the Slave States certainly, you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the Bible. You are AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 305 trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by divine ordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. Douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery was right by the Bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery of the white man, — of men without reference to color ; and he knows very well that you may enter- tain that idea in Kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for you : he makes the argument that the slavery of the block man, the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different color from your own, is right. He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a moment be brought by your own argument of the Bible-right of slavery. Will you not give him credit for that ? Will you not say that in this matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves ? Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, having been entirely successful in that branch of his efiforts in your behalf, he is ready for another. At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that while in all contests between the negro and the white man he was for the white man, but that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for the negro. He did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great many times in the canvass in Illinois last year (though I don't know that it was reported in any of his speeches there), but he frequently made it. I believe he repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he repeated it here. It is, then, a deliberate way of expressing himself upon that subject It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to express himself u{>on that point of his case. It therefore requires some deliberate attention. The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you are wronging the white man in some way or other, and that whoever is opposed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some way or other, against the white man. Is not that a falsehood ? If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas ; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved; that the mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white men. At all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it ; it is for your benefit it is made. The other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the negro and the crocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose that if a crocodile (or, as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call them, alligators) should come across a white man, he would kill him if he could, and so he would a negro. But what^ at last, is this proposition ? I believe that it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated thus : ''As the negro is to the white man, so is the crocodile to the negro ; and as the negro may rightfully treat the croco- dile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile." That is really the " knip " of all that argument of his. Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank 30 806 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any of yourselves have done. Again, Douglas's great principle^ " Popular Sovereignty,** as he calls it, gives you, by natuml consequence, the revival of the slave-trade whenever you want it If you question this, listen awhile, consider awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition. He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the Territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go there equaUy to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them ? Can you point out the difference ? The man who goes into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there which belongs to him, would certainly have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You will not say — you, the friends of Judge Douglas — but that the man who does not own a slave has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territoiy as the other does? A voice : I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere with the slave-trade ? Mr. Lincoln : Well I I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whip foreign nations whenever they interfere with us. Voice : I only asked for information. I am a Republican myself. Mr. Lincoln : You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press. I say. that Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, establishing his sacred right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy them cheapest ; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like to hear him try it If any man can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves, because they want them, than the people of (Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is " Popular Sovereignty " for the people to have slaves because they want them, it is Popular Sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to do so. I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, — not seeming to notice that he had a different theory, — has made an effort to get rid of that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody, I believe, who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the laws that prohibit the African slave-trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises of the Constitution of the United States. Now, it would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn to the Constitution of the United States and point out that compromise, to show where there is any compromise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution, express or implied, by which the adminis- trators of that Constitution are under any obligation to repeal the African slave-trade. I know, or at least I think I know, that the framers of that Con- stitution did expect that the African slave-trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, to which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended. I think there is abundant cotemporaneous history to show that the framers of the Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished. The migration or importa- AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 807 tioQ of such persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that time ? The Constitution is as silent about that as it is silent, personally, about myself. There is absolutely nothing in it about that subject ; there is only the expectation of the framers of the Constitution that the slave-trade would be abolished at the end of that time ; and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public sentiment, before that time ; and they put that provision in, in order that it should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which I will not now try to enumerate before you. But while they expected the slave-trade would be abolished at that time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the new Territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that the framers of the Constitution of the United States expected that slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to prove that it was expected that the slave- trade should be abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was nothing said in the Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territory. I grant that ; but there was something very important said about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of *87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin, are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the Convention that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of that Convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and the other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects, the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the restriction of slavery from the new Territories. But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of those laws ; because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that I You ought not to be ! You ought to be patient 1 You ought to know that if he said less than that, he would lose the power of ** lugging '* the Northern States to your sup- port Beally, what you would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by precedent. Judge Douglas holds himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember that by the time you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave-trade, that sufidcient time will have arrived, by pi*ecedent, for Judge Douglas to break through that com- promise. He says now nothing more strong than he said in 1849 when he declared in favor of the Missouri Compromise, — that precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise to be a sacred thing, which " no ruthless hand would ever dare to touch," he himself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy it By a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise abolishing the slave-trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his services in that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure of hetving them. But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit, that he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, exclude your slaves from those Territories; that he declared, by 808 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN " unfriendly legislation " the extension of your property into the new Terri- tories may be cut ofiF, in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He said that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so many words. You ought, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. You may hunt in every speech that he has since made, and he has never used that expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did then ; but by some sort of accident, he has always really stated it differently. He has always since then declared that " the Constitution does not caiTy slavery into the Territories of the United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it, as other property." Kow, there is a difference in the language used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering whether there is not also a difference in meaning. What is it to exclude ? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or change its character so that, as property, it is out of existence. But what is the con- trolling of it " as other property " ? Is controlling it as other property the same thing as destroying it, or driving it away ? I should think not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the controlling of property means the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say " God speed " to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus control slave property, they would sing quite a different tune if, by the pretence of controlling it, they were to undertake to pass laws which virtually excluded it, — and that upon a very well known principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, it cannot do by indirection ; that as the Legislature has not the power to drive slaves out, they have no power, by indirection, by tax, or by imposing bur- dens in any way on that property, to effect the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred Scott court unconstitutional. Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked, and impudent absurdity ; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being ** controlled as other property** The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it will go. He now swears by the court He was once a leading man in Illinois to break down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But he now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to working for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy property in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly enough that there can be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. S09 " I swear by the court ; I give it up ; " and while that is going on he has been getting all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than you serve yourselves. Again : I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact that Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion that this government " cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.** He has complained of Seward for using different language, and declaring that there is an " irrepressible conflict " between the principles of free and slave labor. [A voice : He says it is not original with Seward. That is original with Lincoln.] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hick- man of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman : why ? There is a little chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference 1 It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man. But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable or unen- viable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea was expressed by the Bichmond "Enquirer" in Virginia, in 1856, — quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglets was pluming himself that in his conflict with my humble self, last year, he had " squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet Seward he would have "squelched" it there also, it never occurred to him to breathe a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to " squelch " out that idea there. No. More tlian that. That same Boger A. Pryor was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the 2>ar excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a desire that the country shall all becoiue free, and not when expressed by those fairly known to enteitain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge Douglas with you. There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglas at your Convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity of the man, — the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Let me call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things. Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in the Bepublican party expressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful ; but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desii'e that Douglas should be re-elected ; that another man that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti- slavery men in the North that Douglas ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a senator from Kentucky, who I have always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man ; who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient 810 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois to secure the re*election of Douglas. Now, that all these con- flicting elements should be brought, while at daggers' points with one another, to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, by the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something : it is probable that the anti-sliavery men thought their views would gain something ; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions ; that Mr. Critten- den thought that his views would gain something, although he was opposed to both these other men. It is probable that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas ; and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform wonders is one for you lightly to throw away. There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. It is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated ; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, the Eepub- licans and othors forming the opposition of the country, intend to " stand by OUT guns," to bb ^atient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether you take him or k. '• We know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both togei We know that you are " all of a feather," and that we have to beat you aicA^gether, and we expect to do it. We don't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, — beat you, — you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution ; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have de- generated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, — Washing- ton, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we ; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circum- stances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to marry your girls when we have a chance, — the white ones I mean ; and I have the honor to inform you that I once did have a chance in that way. I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do. I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Bepublican, or anything like it, is elected President of the United States. [A voice : That is so.] ** That is so," one of them says ; I wonder if he is a Kentuckian ? [A voice : He is a Douglas man.] Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it ? Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece ? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us out- rageous fellows ? Or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger of your losing it ? Do you think you can better yourselves, on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to AND STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 811 return those specimens of your movable property that come hither ? You have divided the Union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligations to do anything for you, how much better oflF do you think you will be ? Will you make war upon us and kill us all ? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men as live ; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions : but, man for man, you are not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could whip us ; if we were equal, it would likely be a drawn battle ; but, being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us. But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuckians than I ought to have done, inasmuch as I have said that whatever courae you take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose to address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discussing with them the best means of keeping that promise that I have in good faith made. It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorable proposition of Douglas's that the inter- ference of the Greneral Government, through the Ordinance of '87, or through any other act of the General Government, never has made or ever can make a Free State ; that the Ordinance of '87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indi- ana, or Illinois. That these States are free upon his ''great principle" of Popular Sovereignty, because the people of tliose several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compli- ment the people that they themselves have made the State of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and'judgment, but let the facts be remembered. In 1802, 1 believe, it was you who made your first constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very nearly unanimously ; but you should bear in mind that you — speaking of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst you ; that you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this cx)ntinent who have adopted slavery. Pray what was it that made you free ? What kept you free? Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a Free State ? It is important to inquire by what reason you found it so. Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is sepa- rated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, by i^eason of the course of the Ohio, is further north than this portion of Ohio, in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery; Ohio is entirely free from it What made that difference ? Was it climate ? No. A portion of Kentucky was further north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil ? No. There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave 812 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN labor than the other. It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be entirely covered with slavery, and the other side free of it. What was it ? Study over it Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there be anything ycu can conceive of that made that difference, other than that there was no Uw of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 ke]it it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the i'lea that that Ordinance has never made any State free. I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; and what I have said as betw( en Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky : it is eq\ially applicable. One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation for a time in order that they should exercise the '' Popular Sover- eignty " of having sUves if they wanted them. The men then controlling the General Governmeni , imitating the men of the Bevolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it we^ not for that Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way ; that Congress refused to do so ; and it all ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not then that the Ordin- ance of '87 had noth: ng to do with making Indiana a Free State, when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained by, that barrier. Come down agair to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory, including Ohio, Indi ^na, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the B itish Government, in part, at least, from the French. Before the establish laent of our independence it becomes a part of Virginia, enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government There were French settlem 3nts in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri, — in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed or many years,- — perhaps more than a hundred, if not as much as two hundrel years, — at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, j erhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired t le Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master rnd slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into i.he Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and Misso iri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same period of time ; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same time. At the end of that ten jears, in which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of time) the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased ; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years there were about ten thou iand. This being so, and it being remembered that Mis- souri and Illinois a*e, to a certain extent^ in the same parallel of latitude; that the northern half of Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of lati:ude, so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the other, and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the other, — m'^'^tm^fmmm^'t^mgmmmmmt Bv^aWMTiMvir^w-w ^v«M AND STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 813 there being none of those natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet there being a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to inquire what was the cause of that difference. It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was the Ordinance of '87. The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that ten years ; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference ? I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a Free State, is a fallacy, — a proposi- tion without the shadow or substance of truth about it Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free have become so upon his "great principle;" that the State of Illinois itself came into the Union as a Slave State, and that the people, upon the " great principle " of Popular Sovereignty, have since made it a Free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any enforcement of the Ordinance to over- throw the system, there had been a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this, the clause for the prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of running like yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be introduced, and that the children of indentured servants should be bom free ; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. How far the facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial men to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, worthy of being remem- bered, that that little thing, those few indentured servants being there, was of itself sufficient to modify a constitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free constitution ; showing the power of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people, however anxious to make a Free State, from making it perfectly sa I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do. I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could talk awhile. [Cries of " (Jo on," and " Give us it."] It is this, then : Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this : If one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man nor anybody else has a right to object Apply it to government, as he seeks to apply it, and it is this : If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the pur- pose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the family of communities of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family 40 314 DEBATES BETWEEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN of States as parent of M, — however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's Popular Sovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real Popular Sovereignty in the world. I think a definition of Popular Sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this : that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be : that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decide that question for themselves ; and yet tliey are not fit to decide who shall be their governor, judge or secretary, or who shall be any of their officers. These are vast national matters, in his estimation ; but the little matter in his estima- tion is that of planting slavery there. That is purely of local interest^ which nobody should be allowed to say a word about Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difiTerence in opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the communi^. They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. They begin next to consider what is the best way. They say there are but two ways : one is to hire men, and to allure them to labor by their consent ; the other is to buy the men, and drive them to it ; and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the ques* tion of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide that they are better off* in the condition of slaves. In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumu- late capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also, if they should choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save them- selves from actual labor, and hire other people to labor for them, is right In doing so they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are bene- fited by working for others, hired laborers, receiving their capital for it Thus a few men, that own capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor rightfully. A relation of which I make no complaint But I insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labor of the country. [The speaker proceeded to aigue that the hired laborer, with his ability to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors under the inducement of force. He continued :] I have taken upon myself, in the name of some of you, to say that we expect upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think we want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the nationaliza- tion of that institution, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either slaTciT ms busg ligbt^ or as bcs^ «» 'iir Itiniifl dovt. Xxna^ vin BMkeTOQ saieoQBafiil bntaeldafr^ a 1^1^ v^ixksbtQ x»tts ^^ liaw as bosg ^rn>i^ When I sar this. I do bcc aoeax ^ sar tba: uas^ Gmae^ GoTeramem is chazged wiih the dutr of TCii?eisc2^ cr xm^nsca^ aoi di^ wrongs in the woiid, but I do tliink tha: h is c2ka;:s9eii w^ icn ' maj ^ aaii redne^ing all wn>Dgs which are wioo^ te i^si^ l\s c.^^vynaneH s expressly chazged with the dutj of pioTidiv fer i^ jcenenLT w^:»». W^ beUeTe that the spreading oat and perpecmnr cf the na c . g jfi j jiL £t s^^vr impairs the genezal wel£ue. We belie^ne — nar, w« knc^ — iSua ::Siat » ti^ only thii^ that has erer threatened the pqrp e gaitT of the UsksK nsieSfL IW only thing which has eret menaced the destnKtsoa of &e {fCfreEWMffit icntier which we live, is this Tezy thing. To lepras this ^osac ^^^ tii&k. is pi^ Tiding for the general weliaie. Our friends in Kensoc^ ciSer ^^hk ^&s^ W« need not make oar aigoment for them, but w« who thiak h » vrsi^ a all m relations, or in some of them at leasts must decide as to oer ^^m aietMiiS aad our own cooise, upon our own judgment. I say that we must not interfere with the iutitctioQ oc s^tcct is: die States wh»e it exists, because the Constitution forbids it. aM dbe ^eoeial welfiire does not require us to do sa We most not withhold an eficiM Fo^ tiYe Slave law, because the Ck>nstitution requires us, as I understa&i ic xMt to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the outspieadii^ of the insdtntioii, because neither the Constitution nor genend welCure requiros us to extend it^ We must prevent the revival of the African slave-tiade, and the enaeduff by Congress of a Territorial slave-code. We must prevent each of theM thu^ being done by either congresses or courts. The people erf' these United Slates are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to oveithiow die Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must h